|
Date: |
4 February 2021 |
Ward: |
Micklegate |
|
Team: |
West Area |
Parish: |
Micklegate Planning Panel |
|
Reference: |
19/00542/LBC |
|
Application at: |
Station Building Railway Station Station Road York YO24 1AY |
|
For: |
Internal and external alterations including the demolition of Parcel Square buildings and the construction of a new façade and associated works to retained elevations, new roof and canopy and associated internal rearranged accommodation. |
|
By: |
City Of York Council |
|
Application Type: |
Listed Building Consent |
|
Target Date: |
12 February 2021 |
|
Recommendation: |
Approve after referral to Sec. of State |
1.0 PROPOSAL
Proposal
1.1 Listed building consent is sought for internal and external works to the Grade II* listed York Railway Station in connection with the re-organisation of the existing highway infrastructure in the area surrounding the station, from Lendal gyratory to Blossom Street.
1.2 The application has been the subject of changes to the initial scheme submitted in order to respond to consultation responses, design development and the scheme’s funding. This includes the works relating to the Station itself.
1.3 The specific works included in the application that would affect the listed railway station are:
- demolition of ‘Parcel Square’ buildings; construction of new façade and canopy and rearranged internal accommodation to form new taxi rank and drop off
- new paving within Portico
- installation of temporary buildings in the North train shed to provide replacement staff and retail accommodation and cycle parking.
- installation of buildings in the South train shed to accommodate Train Operating Companies (TOCs) staff accommodation and storage
- a new access stair in the south train shed flank wall
1.4 The wider scheme generally referred to as the ‘York Station Frontage’ (YSF) is intended to be delivered in three phases; the demolition of Parcel Square and the construction of a new façade and canopy and other works within and surrounding the Railway Station are intended to be delivered within Phase 3. The wider scheme includes public realm improvements to Tea Room Square including landscaping and paving.
1.5 The application is linked to the accompanying planning application (19/00535/FULM). The City Walls will be affected by the proposals and as a Scheduled Monument a scheduled monument consent application will be required and it is the applicants intention to submit this at a later date to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). A schedule monument strategy has been submitted to support the scheme.
The Application Site
1.6 The areas of the Railway Station that are affected include the Portico (sometimes referred to as the ‘Porte Cochere’), Tea Room square and infill buildings known as Parcel Square (the area is currently occupied by Cycle Heaven retail outlet, train operating company accommodation) and back of house areas retail storage facilities and Enterprise rent-a-car offices that extend to the South train shed and concourse adjacent to platform 3. The South train shed where there is the Trans Pennine Express mess room and staff cycle parking. The North train shed is accessed by both vehicles and pedestrians from Tea Room Square and provides short stay car park. The brick shed wall forms the western façade of the Principal Hotel (formerly Royal York Hotel).
1.7 York Railway Station was constructed in 1872-7 to designs by Thomas Prosser, Benjamin Burley and William Peachey. Additions were made in 1900-9 and 1938-9. In 1942 the station was bomb damaged, repaired in 1947. The first plan which can be dated definitively is from 1873, showing the Railway Station almost entirely as built; a symmetrical, axial arrangement with a portico, booking hall, winged concourse and signal box built onto the side of a curving, four-vaulted shed. To the north and south of this grouping were open entrances to the shed. The northern concourse wing housed the ladies waiting room and lavatories and a large first-class dining room, the southern wing contained offices, including the parcels office and men’s waiting room and lavatories.
1.8 The design for the train shed at York draws from Paddington Station in London (Brunel, 1854; Grade I). The roofs at both Paddington and York feature similar semi-elliptical vaults although York’s is much richer and more muscular. The trusses spanning between the main columns are smaller at York and supported by an elegant arrangement of Corinthian columns and curved spandrels memorably cast with the NER’s heraldic seal. The original glazing system on the shed roof was a ridge-and–furrow system in transverse ridges.
1.9 In 1900 the timber dedicated Taxi Kiosk was constructed which is individually listed as Grade II. Other alterations to the Station included the filling of the arches of the portico with timber-framed glazing in 1905; however in 1940 the glazed screens were cut back to the upper two panes allowing a bus shelter canopy to the fitted to the front elevation. The northern entrance through the east flank of the train shed was partially infilled in 1906 with the construction of the Ladies Tea room (now York Tap); this was used during the Second World War as a Navy, Army and Air Force Institute for servicemen and women in transit.
1.10 The station suffered considerable fire damage to the southern end of the station including the parcel office after being hit by two bombs on the night of 29 April 1942. The shed roof was replaced with relatively little coarsening of the detailing. A replacement parcel office was built in c.1947 on the same footprint as the 1893 infill building which remains today.
Relevant Planning History
1.11 There is extensive planning history relating to the Railway Station however the applications considered to be of most relevance include:
York Railway Station Ref: 18/00005/LBC
Internal alterations including new customer zone, first class lounge, TVM housing, ATM building and ladies toilets following demolition of existing concourse building and associated reinstatement works
Application permitted 28 June 2019
York Railway Station Adjacent to Platform 3 Ref: 19/01663/LBC
Erection of 1no. food and drink kiosk
Application Permitted 31 December 2019
2.0 POLICY BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
2.1 The Railway Station (including York Tap (formerly Ladies Tea Room)) is Grade II* listed. Within the Portico is the Grade II Taxi Kiosk. Sections 16 (2) and Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 state that in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
2.2 Case law has made clear that a finding of harm to a listed building or its setting is a consideration to which the decision-maker must give considerable importance and weight when carrying out the balancing exercise in order give effect to its statutory duties under the 1990 Act. There is a "strong presumption" against the grant of planning permission in such cases.
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
2.3 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that an application is made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council does not have a formally adopted local plan.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019
2.4 The revised NPPF (2019) sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Its planning policies are material to the determination of planning applications. The Framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (Paragraph 7). To achieve sustainable development, the planning system has three overarching objectives; economic, social and environmental objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (paragraph 8).
2.5 The most relevant section of the NPPF includes section 16 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’.
Draft Local Plans
2.6 The City of York Draft Local Plan Incorporating the Fourth Set of Changes was approved for development management purposes in April 2005 (DCLP). Whilst the DCLP does not form part of the statutory development plan, its policies are considered to be capable of being material considerations in the determination of planning applications where policies relevant to the application are consistent with those in the NPPF as revised in March 2012, although the weight that can be afforded to them is very limited.
2.7 The Publication Draft City of York Local Plan 2018 ('2018 Draft Plan') was submitted for examination on 25 May 2018. Phase 1 of the hearings into the examination of the Local Plan took place in December 2019. In accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF the Draft Plan policies can be afforded weight according to:
-The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);
- The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and
- The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the previous NPPF published in March 2012. (NB: Under transitional arrangements plans submitted for examination before 24 January 2019 will be assessed against the 2012 NPPF).
2.8 The following policies within the 2018 draft Local Plan which are directly and most relevant within the consideration of this proposal area:
D5 Listed Buildings
T3 York Railway Station and associated operational facilities
Emerging local plan evidence base
2.9 The evidence base that underpins the merging policies can be afforded weight in determining this application. The evidence base documents relevant to this application are:
Note: References are as per the Core Document Library submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for the examination of the Local Plan.
Placemaking Heritage and Culture
SD103 – City of York Heritage Topic Paper Update (September 2014)
Conservation Area Appraisal
2.10 The York Central Historic Core Conservation Area (YCHCCA) was adopted by the Planning Committee in November 2011 and provides additional controls to help preserve, enhance and protect the settings. The YCHCCA appraisal defines the unique characteristics that make York so special, and has split up the conservation area into 24 character areas. The station is located within character area 22: Railway Area and its boundary has been extended to include the former locomotive works (off Queen Street) (Railway Institute) and railway station platforms and canopy.
2.11 The YCHCCA provides detailed analysis of each individual character area and also looks at the management recommendations, some of which reflect the aspirations of the Station Frontage project, and it is considered necessary to include reference to them within this application, where it is relevant to the listed building consent application.
- York Central Historic Core Conservation Area Part One- Understanding the City
- Character Area No. 22: Railway Area
- York Central Historic Core Conservation Area Part Two- Management Strategy
2.12 The management recommendations in Part Two: Management Strategy considers the threats to the character and appearance of the buildings and archaeology in the Conservation Area and identifies management tools for addressing these. Streets and spaces (Section 5.10) are identified as detracting from the character, appearance and experience of the conservation area. The ‘Station Approach and Memorial Gardens’ is identified as a key civic space and a priority for improvement. This is described as a disappointing way to arrive into the city with highways, public transport, landscape and public realm should be integrated to create an attractive pedestrian-centric place making the most of the gardens and ramparts. One of the priorities include the reorganisation of the crowded station forecourt to improve movement and interchange between modes of transport dominated.
2.13 Conservation Development Strategy (CDS 2013)
This is an existing Conservation Development Strategy that was prepared by John Ives of PPIY Limited, on behalf of East Coast Main Line Company, in association with the City of York Council, the Railway Heritage Trust and Network Rail with input from Historic England. This Strategy sets outs the historical development and current use of the station, its approach and the Queen Street works area and establishes the inherent characteristics and heritage significance of the station and its surrounds. This is considered to carry moderate weight in the assessment of the application.
3.0 CONSULTATIONS
3.1 A number of consultees include issues relating to the wider scheme within their submitted comments. The relevant part relating solely to listed building matters have been extracted and included within this report. All other matters are covered in the accompanying planning application report Ref: 19/00535/FULM.
INTERNAL
Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development (Conservation Architect)
3.2 The submitted Heritage Statement supporting the application is extremely detailed, considered and informative and has been valuable, along with the Addendum Report in assessing the proposals.
3.3 Parcel Square/new first class lounge- no objections to this element of the application. The existing office building and Cycle Heaven is of very limited significance. A modernist façade infill is proposed with canopy for taxi drop off. It is stated that the design development arose from a desire to reinstate symmetry resulting in the infill facade being set back behind the dominant and buttressed shed wall. The new facade is designed to be a relatively strong form in itself but with an infill character which is deferential to the massing and materials of the adjacent buildings. Key horizontal features on the existing buildings have also informed design development.
3.4 This is a considered approach to context and a modern, innovative design solution that I continue to be supportive of. Most importantly, in my view, the proposal reflects the original design intention for the station by allowing the flank (buttressed walls) and the porte cochere to remain the dominant features. The proposal, whilst inventive and of its time, reinforces the idea that this was originally an ‘opening’ between the principal elements. I believe the design is recessive enough to reflect the original design intention and that the simple monochrome colour palette reinforces this. I believe the design better reveals the significance of the railway station (Paragraph 200 NPPF) by providing a greater understanding of the original design intention; allowing the principal elements to remain primary; and, referencing the original ‘open’ nature of this part of the station.
3.5 North and South sheds- I cannot support this element of the application as it will result in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset but at the upper level of that harm. On a scale of 1- 10, with 10 being the highest, I would assess the harm at 8. The significance of the station is, in part, due to the train shed roof and the flank wall supporting it. This significance is generally acknowledged I believe, and mentioned numerous times in heritage assessments. The aesthetic and historic value of the train shed roof, its flank walls and the resulting space cannot be underestimated. The significance is very profound and easily identifiable. The elements are carefully designed and include; tapered iron trusses that are punctured in a decorative way and spring from column capitals that are integrated into a string course; the walls don’t incorporate simple brick arches but each bay is a ‘cartouche’ form with an oculus over; and, the parts define the sweeping space with its subtle curved plan form.
3.6 The individual and temporary ‘pods’ proposed for both areas are completely unacceptable. The negative impact on the significance of the train shed will be major and I don’t believe it is justified by public benefit. An appreciation of the architectural features described above and of the resultant space they create will be lost. The ‘pods’ are too numerous and extensive and their location inappropriate to be supported on heritage grounds.
3.7 The new access stair in the south train shed is currently shielded by the temporary pod, but they will eventually be removed. The stair in isolation on the train shed flank wall will have a negative impact on aesthetic and historical value, diminishing significance and affecting special architectural historic interest in a harmful way.
3.8 Conclusion- I object to the applications on the grounds of only one element of the submission which is the temporary accommodation proposed for the north and south sheds. This element of the proposal will have a negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset and cause harm at the upper level of less than substantial.
EXTERNAL
Micklegate Planning Panel
3.9 Do not object but wish to make comments:
3.10 The ‘pavilion’ buildings in the north and south train shed should be constructed to a high standard of design and detail and do not give the appearance of ‘temporary structures’.
3.11 The Parcel Square infill appears forced, rather than mannered and this section of the building would never be read visually with the Ladies Tea Room so it seems irrelevant to echo it. A simple elegant treatment allowing the historic elements to stand out would be a much better option.
Holgate Planning Panel
3.12 No objections were raised to the original scheme and further no objections are raised to the revised application.
Historic England
3.13 Overall we object to the application on heritage grounds; the application does not met the NPPF and in particular paras. 124, 127, 131, 185, 189, 192-194 and 200. Detailed comments include:
- Porte Cochere
3.14 We welcome the further information provided on the treatment of the Porte cochere following the removal of the taxi service from within it, showing that it will remain open and provide simple, high quality new paving. We would expect detailed of this to be agreed with your Conservation Architect.
- Parcel Square
3.15 Demolitions proposed for Parcel Square is considered an enhancement. The revised proposal is intended to mirror the 1906 Ladies tea room on the opposite side of the main entrance. It is a contemporary version of that feature and seeks to regularise the distinctive facetted from. The aim is for it to be a strong, solid façade but with an infill character. The front fascia of the façade aligns with the string course of the adjacent building. The addition of a butterfly pitched canopy with a timber clad soffit is intended to add some visual warmth. We remain unconvinced that the scheme better enhance or reveal significance and that as a new development in a distinctive place, the design and detailing should be attempting to better reveal the significance of York station.
3.16 Materials- agree with the proposed enamelled metal panels to clad the façade; the dark grey will be recessive and reflect the station roof and south shed gable.
3.17 Further information on design and materials for the proposed Parcel Square entrance façade is required; how the design motifs will appear from a distance in context of city walls and a sample panel should be supplied for inspection to understand how the enamel coating will be applied to the metal and the robustness of this technique. These are fundamental to the success of design from a heritage significance perspective. There is a need for safeguards to ensure the Parcel Square façade is not ‘value engineered’ out of the final scheme due to cost savings.
- North and South Train Sheds
3.18 Our concerns regarding the erection of new structures in the South Train shed remain and have not been addressed in the note. The units now appear to have been more carefully designed to respond to their context but concerns remain to the principle of development in this area as it will be harmful to the architectural qualities of the wall behind the space.
3.19 A ‘Clarification Note on Northern Train shed Buildings Note’ has been submitted; the proposed number, location and design of the new structures in the North Train shed is unchanged, and our advice on the impact on significance remains unchanged. We remain concerned about the impact of three individual pods; this side has a more enclosed feel than the south shed. We can understand the logic behind Cycle Heaven and Enterprise being located here, but not 80sqm of storage space-why can’t it go somewhere else.
3.20 We recognise there is no intention for the structures to become permanent, however it is a concern that there is no agreed timescale for the removal of the structures and that this very much depends on the delivery of York Central. A number of measures are suggested, such as a time-limit condition attached to the consent. This is less than satisfactory and we therefore advise that in reaching your decision it will be important to carefully weigh the public benefits of these works against the harm to the significance of the station building.
- General comments
3.21 Still concerned about lack of strategic thinking between these proposals and those being considered by Network Rail/LNER for the station itself, and this is particularly evident in the draft status of the CDS, the implication being that none of the proposals have been developed and informed by a completed and agreed final text on the significance of the building.
Railway Heritage Trust
3.22 No response received.
Conservation Area Advisory Panel (CAAP)
3.23 Initial application comments from a meeting undertaken on 4 June 2020 with the Panel welcoming the proposals. The elements causing concern were:
- the form and appearance of the secondary entrance created in ‘Parcel Square’ are not yet fully resolved
- the lack of any joined up thinking between these proposals and those being considered by Network Rail/LNER for the station itself.
- the introduction of a building to accommodate staff accommodation and storage displaced by Parcel Square in the southern train shed; this is an inappropriate structure in this location and could be accommodated in the vacant area above the current travel centre.
3.24 Revised application comments from a meeting conducted on 4 August 2020 with the panel citing that they were generally disappointed for the proposals relating to Parcel Square and north and south train sheds and reiterate that there is no coherent policy for the whole station. There were several references to a new Conservation Management Strategy for the station and it would be good to see this and relate it to the proposals. Overall the proposals were considered unworthy of this grade II* listed building.
- Parcel Square
3.25 General concern regarding this area; doesn’t appear to be a major entrance into the station and is one of a store room and small/inadequate exit corridor. No indication as to how the Porte Cochere will be used; it was hopes that providing retail units in this area is to be avoided. Concerns were raised for the intentions for the separately listed taxi office. The panel were not convinced by the proposed use of vitreous cladding panels
- North and South sheds
3.26 Understood that the freestanding buildings are to be of a temporary nature but evidence showed this was rarely the case. The Panel rejected the design of these units considering them unworthy even of temporary buildings but also destroying the special quality of the train shed. The replacement staff facilities could be located in a vacant area above the travel centre.
York Civic Trust
3.27 Comments were submitted on 27 May 2019 citing an objection to the application highlighting that the recognised traffic improvements should not come at a detrimental cost to the aesthetics of the historic station or provision of customer service:
- Poor Design
3.28 It is unclear how the application sits in relation to the LBC application 18/00005/LBC. The replacement for Parcel Square is disappointing; as a modern design they are unimaginative and the use of grey vitreous enamel laser printed external rain screen cladding and zinc canopy roof would be cold and alien to the warmth of the butter-coloured brick of adjacent walls and buttresses. This is a lost opportunity to enhance this Grade II* building.
-Reduced Standards of Customer Service
3.29 No guidance what the port cochere will be used for; lessons should be learnt from Newcastle station if to create commercial units. The relocation of taxi rank to partly covered provision will result in customers carrying luggage in the rain. The access through a narrow corridor is too insubstantial and will create a bottleneck and offer poor visibility.
3.30 Comments in respect to the revised application were submitted on 19 August 2020 and despite many aspects of the application as beneficial to the understanding of the city’s heritage as well as providing improved transport and traffic connectivity the Trust maintains their objection for the following reasons:
- Station Buildings
3.31 The replacement structure for Parcel Square remains disappointing architecturally, with a provision of utilitarian retail spaces being detrimental to the station usage and architecture of the building. As modern design they are uninspiring and ‘statement’ architecture it is not. Outlook from the Parcel Square façade is mostly redundant and the station would be better served if the storage and first class lounge was reconfigured to allow more views out. Concerns in relation to the exit corridor remain. Remains no insight as to how the Porte Cochere will be used; could potentially be used for commercial space and alleviate some of the existing retail provision in the station buildings and a reduced requirement for new units in the north and south sheds. The trust does not believe that public benefits arising from changes to the station building have or could be demonstrated; the station is already functioning its optimum viable use. Any wider public benefits could be found outside the station building itself and do not depend on the proposed substantial harm to the station building.
Ancients Monuments Society
3.32 No response received.
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
3.33 Initial comments dated 29 April 2019 outlined that they were broadly supportive of the proposals to enhance the existing York station frontage and the proposed demolition of Queen Street Bridge. No comments were made with specific reference to the works to the Station.
The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
3.34 No response received.
The Georgian Group
3.35 No response received.
The Victorian Society
3.36 No response received.
The Twentieth Century Society
3.37 No response received.
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 The application has been widely publicised by site notice and local press notice.
4.2 One letter of representation refers directly to listed building consent matters. Other letters of representation received relate to the wider scheme and are covered in the accompanying planning application report Ref: 19/00535/FULM.
4.3 The letter referring to listed building matters are from a visitor to York and raise the following concerns;
- removal of Queen Street Bridge is an exciting proposal and is fully supported
- north shed building- glad they are temporary in nature as the platform may be needed in the further for reinstating rail links (between York and Hull via Pocklington)
- south shed- hoped these are also temporary in nature as they conflict with proposals to reinstate two turn back proposals for Church Fenton to Newcastle in 2030
- tea room square- exciting transformation, but could be achieved with or without the pedestrianisation of the Station Portico
- portico- hard to see what will be achieved that can’t be with electric taxis; the sense and purpose of this element of the building will be lost and difficult to understand what the new space will be used for
- the optimum solution for the portico would be to retain taxi’s picking up in this location, removing the need for three separate lanes allowing improvements to the public realm
- MSCP- highly prominent site that would be better off in conjunction with the adjacent Gym as a new NRM Gallery; historically the Gym was home to York’s first railway museum
5.0 APPRAISAL
5.1 Key Issues:
- Impact of the proposed works on the special architectural and historic interest of York Railway Station (Grade II*)
Significance of station
Impact of the proposals upon individual areas of station:
- Portico inc Taxi Kiosk
- Parcel Square
- South Train Shed
- North Tran shed
Conclusion of Harm
- Public benefits
Significance of Station
5.2 In order to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of any heritage asset, the significance of the heritage asset in question should be described by the applicant, with the level of detail proportionate to the assets; importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact (NPPF, para 189).
5.3 There are many sources of information setting out the significance of the station, and the applicant’s Heritage Statement including the Heritage Statement Addendum and Architectural Addendum are extremely detailed and informative. The LPA has also consulted the 2013 Conservation Development Strategy in identifying and assessing the particular significance of the Railway Station. In understanding the heritage significance of an asset, Historic England in their document, Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, sets out the criteria for understanding its heritage value; Evidential Value, Historical Value, Aesthetic Value and Communal Value.
5.4 Overall, the railway station is of high significance which is derived from the aesthetic values for its majestic curve of the train shed with fine arches and cast-iron detailing as well as the structural innovation in its design having historical value. The original historical layout of the concourse area survives intact, and is mostly still in use as intended; the symmetrical arrangement of the inner and outer concourses have historical and evidential value, with also communal interest as a key focus on passenger activity and contributes high significance. The quality and consistency of the Station however is compromised by later additions. The interiors are mostly low grade and substantially altered, and are considered to be of medium significance by the applicant.
5.5 In terms of other heritage values, the station is rich in historical and evidential value, such as the parcel office area being a reminder of bomb damage, the use of the Ladies Tea Room during the Second World War and the train shed demonstrating structural innovations in its design. The station serves as a major entrance to the city, which has strong links with railway history and development with strong historic and communal value to the station as a daily facility for countless railway workers, commuters and tourists. There are other heritage values associated with other areas of the station, and they are still recognised, however the proposals do not impact upon them directly.
Considering Potential Impacts
5.6 The Framework (para 193) outlines that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). Further in para. 194, any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, should require clear and convincing justification.
5.7 Paragraph 192 of the Framework sets out that LPAs should take account of the following when determining applications:
a) The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
b) The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
c) The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
5.8 Further paragraph 200 of the Framework outlines that LPAs should look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and the setting of heritage assets, to better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting which make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.
5.9 The NPPF makes a distinction between proposals which cause ‘substantial harm’ to a designated heritage asset (paragraph 195) and those which lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ (paragraph 196). Different tests are applied accordingly. Paragraph 196 states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
5.10 Taking each part of the proposals in turn:
Impact of the proposals upon individual areas of the station: Portico
5.11 The Portico serves as the main pedestrian entrance from the city as well as providing a taxi rank for passenger pick-up and drop off area for private cars. One key aspect of the wider station frontage proposals is to remove vehicular access from the Portico and relocate the taxi rank and drop off area to the cleared Parcel Square area of the station. There is a bus canopy attached to the Portico, and this area provides existing bus stops and waiting area. The bus stops will also be relocated to the area in front of the cleared Parcel Square area, positioned along the main carriageway.
5.12 The Portico will remain as the principal pedestrian entrance to the station, with the scheme providing a new pedestrian crossing directly in front of the Portico’s centre arch. The area in front of the Portico will be paved with some seating to enhance the public realm. Within the Portico, other than re-paving to match the wider public realm works, there are no plans to alter the structure or façade. The proposals are to retain the Portico, in terms of its structure and open nature as it is, which is supported by Historic England. The treatment of any areas within the station that may need repair can be secured by condition once vehicular access is removed and a full survey/inspection can be undertaken.
5.13 The removal of vehicles and in particular taxis from the Portico is likely to impact upon the existing Taxi Kiosk, which is listed in its own right (List Entry: 1256557), identified as an unusual survival of an increasingly rare building type. It is used as an office for the station’s hackney carriage taxi firm, Station Taxis and the proposals allow the continued use of the office, and there is nothing to suggest that the management and operation of the taxi firm cannot continue from the office with taxis accessing a slightly more remote taxi rank, within the Parcel Square area, however these issues are not considered to be issues dealt with under a listed building consent application.
5.14 It has been suggested by contributors that the Portico could contain commercial/retail units within it, to alleviate some existing retail provisions in the core buildings, which would reduce the requirement for these new units proposed in the south and north train sheds. It is the intention of this application to primarily relocate vehicles out from the Portico as a key in improving air quality, pedestrian access and the setting to the station, as well as providing a gateway to the city. Whilst the future uses of this space could be explored, the current proposals do not seek commercial uses in this space.
5.15 As there are no alterations to the structure or facade, other than repair, it is considered that the works to the Portico would not result in harm to the features of special architectural or historic interest of this designated heritage asset.
Impact of the proposals upon the ‘Parcel Square’ area
5.16 Parcel trade during the C19 was very profitable and in 1893 parcel facilities expanded in this period at the station from within the southern concourse wing to a single storey building to the side of the Portico, occupying the whole opening to the train shed. However, the Station was hit by two bombs during the Second World War, with one causing considerable fire damage to the southern end of the station, including the parcel office. A replacement parcel office was built in c.1947 on the same footprint as the 1893 infill building and this is the building that remains today. It is occupied by the retail outlet, Cycle Heaven and combined TOC accommodation and back of house and storage areas, which extends into the station (area known as the southern train shed), and provides a retail unit for the car rental, Enterprise and TPE staff accommodation. Further along the southern train shed are numerous cycle parking areas.
5.17 For the purposes of this report the Parcel Square area relates to the Cycle Heaven and combined accommodation including back of house areas, which extends to the south shed concourse. The new building within the south train shed is covered under a separate section ‘South Train Shed’; there is some link between the two areas, however they impact on different parts of the station and in terms of significance, these are considered independently of each other.
5.18 Externally facing, the post war infill building is of poor design quality and detracts from the station frontage as a whole. The area of the southern train shed, adjacent to platform 1 and platform 3 has been the subject to alteration with infill and repair elements that have been identified by the applicant as being pragmatic at best.
5.19 There is general agreement, by the applicant, its Partners and as outlined in the Conservation Development Strategy (2013) that the area adjacent to Platform 3 and the lift shaft is an under-utilised area of the Station, with the CDS suggesting that there is potential to develop this area with increased waiting/lounge facilities and catering units.
5.20 This scheme seeks to demolish the buildings within the parcel square area (the buildings occupying Cycle Heaven and combined TOC accommodation) with a resultant infill building, set back to mirror the external line of the Ladies Tea Room (York Tap). The internal accommodation provided within the infill building, the first class lounge (that is currently under construction in this area permitted under Ref 18/00005/LBC) and the retail storage area as well as an exit corridor to the relocated taxi waiting area will be rearranged from the approved layout.
5.21 The external appearance of the infill building is contemporary in nature; with a predominately solid façade, other than an exit door to access the taxi rank and slender lancet windows, their height being taken from the arched windows on the adjacent concourse building. The windows provide light into the first class lounge without drawing attention to the space. The façade is proposed to be clad with enamelled metal panels, with minimal jointing and hidden details. Plinth and plat-band are carried across the new façade from the adjoining brickwork. The panels are dark grey to complement the cladding material in place on the station roof and the gable of the South Shed, both of which are visible above the infill façade. There is a tonal gradient which shifts from a dark grey at the bottom to a lighter grey at the top and overlaid with a pattern which is intended to give a fine grain to distant views, with a texture at a similar scale to the surrounding brickwork and small scale design feature that catch the eye close up. The pattern is derived from the seal of the North Eastern Railway company which built the original station buildings.
5.22 There will be a canopy projecting over taxi rank area, which is a contemporary butterfly pitched form with glazed panels to the rear to admit light down to the lancet windows.
5.23 It is recognised by the applicant that the demolition works in this area will expose sections of original Victorian brickwork and that the masonry is likely to be scarred and may feature elements of previous buildings. It is not anticipated that major structural work would be required, however the walls are likely to require significant levels of repair. The general approach is to leave their appearance ‘as found’, to help tell the story of how the building has changed over time.
5.24 No objections are raised in respect to the demolition of the existing post war infill buildings that make up the Parcel Square area; the Council’s Conservation Architect agrees with the applicants that these buildings are of very limited significance. However there are contrasting views from consultees as to how this infill building should be designed architecturally and whether it better reveals the significance of the station. Officers accept the approach to mirror the 1906 Ladies Tea Room on the opposite side of the main entrance with the infill façade being set behind the dominant and buttressed shed wall is a suitable approach, with the façade designed with an infill character, deferential to the massing and materials of the adjacent buildings.
5.25 The Micklegate Planning Panel have suggested that the building would never be read visually with the Ladies Tea Room and it is irrelevant to echo it. Whilst this is a valid view and could be how the station is interpreted, the first definitive plan from 1873 shows the Railway Station almost entirely as built and the symmetrical design one of the key original intentions of Thomas Prosser, Benjamin Burley and William Peachey and the reinstatement of this is an accepted heritage approach in this instance. Additionally, it is acknowledged that views from the City Walls can provide longer, panoramic views that take into account the whole station frontage.
5.26 The York Civic Trust consider its design as disappointing and unimaginative architecturally. Additional comments were made in respect to the proposed materials, along with comments from Historic England, who have raised concerns in respect to the how the design motifs would appear in a distance and the robustness of enamel coating technique. Historic England are generally agreeable to the proposed enamelled metal panels to clad the façade, with the dark grey being recessive and reflect the station roof and south shed gable.
5.27 In terms of its visual appearance and design, the detail proposed within the façade, the motifs, the cladding, lancet windows and canopy are strong visual elements that create a contemporary infill, but with the continuation of the plinth and plat-band it will maintain a strong sense of the character and history of the Station building. It is considered that proposed infill will be a high quality, durable and visually attractive new area of the station. Whilst materials will be considered further through conditions, those that have been identified are considered suitable for this type of infill building which complement the adjacent buildings whilst also provide a visually attractive and detailed façade, that provides a historical link to the station.
5.28 The works to this part of the station, the demolition of the existing parcel square buildings and then the careful and detailed design of the replacement infill building and the original section of Victorian brickwork being revealed for the first time are identified as resulting in less than substantial harm to the features of special architectural or historic interest of this designated heritage asset.
5.29 In terms of its heritage value, this part of the station evidences historical and evidential values primarily due to the bomb damage. Reinstating the station’s symmetry with an infill façade that does not compete in design, massing and materials with the original Station, these heritage values will continue to be delivered, and thus enhancing the significance of the station in line with para.200 of the framework.
5.30 The Conservation Area Advisory Panel (CAAP) highlight that there appears to be confusion that this does not take the form of a major entrance into the station; there is no intention for this area to form a main entrance, that will be maintained as the Portico as the station’s original intention. The infill has been designed with an exit point from the station concourse to the taxi rank, and will take on the form of a secondary exit point, similar to Tea Room Square. Due to its location, this exit point is unlikely to be the most direct route to the bus stops and pedestrian access to the city centre and the portico would continue to serve as the primary and main entrance/exits point to and from the Station.
5.31 The area of behind the Cycle Heaven retail unit has been the subject of recent listed building consent (18/00005/LBC) submitted by LNER, which replaced back of house functions, including offices, store room and meeting room with a first class lounge accessed from the southern concourse and a store associated with a new retail unit created where the former booking office was located (accessed from the outer concourse). Cycle Heaven and the TOC accommodation buildings were not affected under these proposals. A number of respondents to the application including Historic England raised concerns in respect to how this application relates to the approved application. The current proposal seeks to retain the existing levels of service provision that has been approved, the first class lounge and the retail store, however these will be arranged differently within this location. The approved entrance lobby to the first class lounge would be retained. Other than the demolition of the buildings that currently occupy Cycle Heaven and TOC accommodation, the back of house area behind does not contain historic fabric. Therefore, as there would be no harm to any features of special architectural or historic interest, no issues arise to the implementation of the LNER scheme and then this scheme. Due to the location and arrangement of the proposed uses, both schemes could not be implemented together, however this current scheme takes into account the existing service levels agreed by partners including LNER and Network Rail.
5.32 Historic England raise concerns that there is a need for safeguards to ensure that the Parcel Square façade is not ‘value engineered’ out of the final scheme due to cost savings. The removal of taxis out of the Portico and re-providing a new taxi rank is a key part of the scheme; improving the highway infrastructure, air quality and the surrounding urban realm. In addition, the provision of a first class lounge and the store for the retailer is important to continuing customer service of the Station. Whilst the works to the Parcel Square area are intended to be delivered within Phase 3 of the development, conditions will secure the development commencing prior to any demolition.
Impact of the proposals upon individual areas of the station: South Train Shed
5.33 As detailed above, there is some link between the Parcel Square area and the southern train shed. The area of the southern train shed to which this application relates includes the area adjacent to Platform 1 and 3. It includes the TPE (TransPennine Express) accommodation building and numerous cycle (including staff), motorcycle parking areas and this has the result of compromising the aesthetic value of this area of the station. In front of the existing TPE accommodation building there is a freestanding ATM and photo booth pod, that was constructed under consent Ref: 18/00005/LBC, and enabled the removal of these uses from the inner concourse. This building is currently in situ and is proposed to be retained in its current location, and would be sited in front of the storage area.
5.34 The submitted Heritage Statement identifies that the change in level between platform and track surfaces in the South Shed has some historic significance, and the platform edges appear to be in their original locations. The columns are considered to have a very high significance, as does the iron roof structure above them and the blind arches of the brick shed wall behind. These are key architectural characteristics of this part of the station.
5.35 At this area of the station the proposals seek a new building in order to accommodate staff accommodation and areas of storage which are to be lost at other areas of the station, notably the Parcel Square area. The proposals for this building has evolved during the application process, however the applicants have set out that for the continued and effective operation of the station, its associated functions and occupiers including health and safety of TOCs’ staff, the floorspace to be lost must be provided, and re-provided within the station building.
5.36 It is noted that there may be a future opportunity to relocate some or all of this operational railway staff accommodation to the western entrance of the station when proposals for a new western entrance is developed as part of the York Central scheme; however there is no certainty in respect to these proposals nor any timescales.
5.37 The southern shed area is considered to be an under-utilised area of the Station, providing pedestrian access to the car and cycle parking as well as access for staff to accommodation/break out areas and the applicants consider this to be the most suitable area of the Station to re-provide the required lost floorspace.
5.38 In terms of the proposed building, this is designed as a light-weight, single storey modular construction and will be positioned adjacent to the south shed wall. The building is split on two levels to acknowledge the original step from track to platform. In order to reduce its visual impact the building is tapered. The building design is described as simple and repetitive, that would be clad with the same varnished timber boards as the proposed taxi rank canopy. The building does not attach or link to the walls of the station building, with pilasters on the main shed wall carried through to the façade of the building. Slim lancet windows will be to the side of each pilaster strip. Overall, the building has been designed so that it is relatively easy to dismantle in the future.
5.39 Many of the concerns raised by consultees refer to both structures proposed in the north and south train sheds, however given the differing architectural and historic significances of each areas of the station they are considered separately, although there may be a level of repetition in the issues raised.
5.40 Objections are raised from the Council’s Conservation Architect and Historic England as well as other consultees in respect to the proposed modular building for the south train shed. The Conservation Architect highlights that these buildings would have a negative impact upon the aesthetic and historic value of the train shed roof and supporting flank wall which contributes significantly to the overall significance of the Station, and is assessed as resulting in less than substantial harm, although at the upper level of this harm.
5.41 Historic England sets out that there is no further clear or convincing justification for this aspect of the proposal, however it is acknowledged that the in respect to the south shed, the building now appears to have been more carefully designed to respond to its context, although concern remains to the principle of development in this area, as it will be harmful to the architectural qualities of the wall behind the space. Other responses in terms of the south shed building includes the requirement for them to be constructed to a high standard of design that does not give the appearance of temporary structures. The Conservation Area Advisory Panel (CAAP) highlight that the freestanding buildings are to be of a temporary nature but this is rarely the case, rejected the design which destroys the special quality of the train shed and suggests that the replacement staff facilities could be located in a vacant area above the travel centre. York Civic Trust considers the use of the Porte Cochere for commercial space to alleviate some existing retail provisions in the core buildings, which would reduce the requirement for these new units.
5.42 It is acknowledged that the floorspace in the inner and outer concourses is limited and generally occupied by existing commercial occupiers and secured by contract with the Station’s operators. An assessment has been provided in the application setting out the current uses of other areas of the station. This highlights that there are no available areas presently that could provide the staff accommodation requirements. Whilst operational issues are not listed building issues, the impact of any new building upon the significance of the heritage asset is.
5.43 It is acknowledged that the sheer length of the proposed building, from the new exit corridor is substantial and would occupy at least 3/4 of the length of the train shed, and with cycle parking at the end, the decorative and carefully designed flank wall and brick arches would be interrupted and obscured. The train shed roof and the tapered iron trusses that are punctured in a decorative way and spring from column capitals that are integrated into a string course are one of the main features of the station and have high significance. However it is noted that the stepped design and the scale of the building reduces and responds more appropriately in its context. It is identified that this aspect of the proposals will result in less than substantial harm to the features of special architectural or historic interest.
5.44 It is noted that the building to provide staff breakout areas is submitted as a permanent feature, however it is designed to be removable if/when proposals are developed for the western station entrance and there is the potential to re-provide this accommodation. There are no timeframes for when this may be. The applicants have sought the southern train shed building as a permanent structure, considering the importance of the majority of the space to be provided in this building is for TOC accommodation, which is essential for the continued and effective operation of the station. However, given the level of harm identified, the building as a permanent structure would not be appropriate in its context and officers consider a temporary consent would be suitable in this regards, which will allow for the wider planning of the station and development of other areas to facilitate some or all of the space requirements. Negotiation has been undertaken with the applicants and partners in respect to the temporary period, with a time limit of 15years agreed and considered to be acceptable. This acknowledges the intended uses and timeframes for the development of wider infrastructure of this scheme, as well as possible future development of the railway infrastructure of the Station itself (i.e. northern powerhouse rail, HS2 and Transpennine Rail Upgrade). It is noted that this is a temporary period that is much longer than normally considered as temporary, however the building as a modular and lightweight structure helps to mitigate some harm. Furthermore, the situation at the station will change and this agreed timeframe is recognising the need to accommodate Network Rail’s long term planning of the station. It is recommended that a condition that secures a retail, storage and TOC accommodation strategy to manage current, and any future requirements of the Station. This timeframe allows for the applicants and key partners to investigate the development of other areas of the station that may help to alleviate and fulfil future requirements.
5.45 It is noted that CAAP provides advice that there is a vacant area above the travel centre to provide staff accommodation. It is identified in the Conservation Management Strategy (2013) that when the travel centre (current location) was rebuilt in the mid-1980s this was with a concrete roof deck that is capable of taking additional floor(s). This was originally a two storey block and would present an opportunity to restore the original design of the Station. Additionally, it is further identified that there is potential for a first floor over the existing waiting room wing of the inner concourse that would match the wing opposite. Whilst these opportunities are presented by contributors, they are schemes that would require significant financial investment from all the Partners, and given that this is a public-led scheme primarily focused upon improving highway infrastructure and the public realm in front of the station, securing appropriate funding would be a challenge in itself. This is in addition to the heritage considerations and issues, as well as engineering considerations that would need to be addressed to ensure either of these schemes could be considered acceptable. This is not to suggest that these development proposals cannot be forthcoming in the future and explored by the Station owners and landlords, however they do not form part of these proposals.
5.46 The proposals include the addition of a roof access stair positioned behind the buttress wall of the south train shed wall and adjacent to the exit corridor of the Parcel Square infill building. This will provide a gantry access tied into the roof of the train shed, with a sliding rail access hatch. It is noted that this will replace an existing temporary scaffold arrangement that is prominent in views on the outside of the station. The Conservation Architect has objected to this proposed internal arrangement, citing that the south shed building will partly obscure the stair access arrangement when viewed from within the station. If the proposed south shed building is removed, as is anticipated, the stair arrangement will primarily be visible and will have a negative impact on the aesthetic and historical value, diminishing significance and affecting special architectural historic interest in a harmful way. However this harm is assessed as less than substantial to the heritage asset.
Impact of the proposals upon individual areas of the station: North Train Shed
5.47 The north shed is accessed from Tea Room Square via a narrow archway beneath the canopy structure and currently provides short stay car parking as well as parking for TOCs. This opening contains the original double row of cast iron columns. The brick shed wall is considered to be more articulated than the South Shed and forms the western façade of the Principal Hotel. The York Tap pub is to the opposite side of the archway. It is noted that the area to the side of the York Tap pub has been used for the storage of retail catering goods on an ad-hoc basis. Opposite this area is platform 2, a terminus platform and at the buffer end is a freestanding building that serves as the gentleman’s toilet block. This building is identified as an eyesore building in the Conservation Development Strategy (2013) and is considered a detractor.
5.48 As with the south shed building, the three proposed modular units proposed to be located within the north train shed will rehouse existing accommodation displaced by the loss of Parcel Square area. One pod will allow the existing retail occupier Cycle Heaven to relocate and a further pod for the relocation of Enterprise. One pod will be used for storage requirements. Further cycle storage area will also be provided with retained parking beyond for police and LNER. Whilst there is no formal cycle route, there is cycle accessibility through the North Train Shed from Tea Room Square to Scarborough Bridge, and this link is retained in the proposals.
5.49 The proposed units are designed as glass pods with the same proportions and timber used in the construction of the South Shed building. They are freestanding units, positioned off the shed wall and of a smaller scale to the hotel façade behind. They are spaced so that there is access to the existing doors which lead to the hotel.
5.50 As well as the concerns raised above by consultees in respect to the proposals for the South Shed building, in terms of the North Shed pod proposals, further comments are noted. Historic England set out that they remain concerned regarding the impact of three individual pods with the north Shed having a more enclosed feel than the south shed. There is logic to the Enterprise and Cycle Heaven being located here, but not the storage space and ask why this could not be located elsewhere.
5.51 As with the proposed buildings in the South Train Shed, there is concern that the three pods will extend along a majority of the North Train Shed, interrupting and obscuring the flank wall and brick arches. The approach into the train shed from Tea Room Square provides key views to the low level canopies on platform 4, albeit altered and extended, they retain their cast iron valances. The three individual pods are set back along the shed wall retaining this key view, as well as the un-interruption of the original double row of columns in the immediate approach in this opening. Positioned adjacent to the pods along the edge of platform 2 will be cycle storage areas. This detail has been carefully planned, in order to continue to allow vehicular access through to operational car parking towards the end of the train shed.
5.52 The smaller of the three pods will provide accommodation for Enterprise, which has an existing position within the Parcel Square area. A further of the pods will provide a retail unit for Cycle Heaven, which is currently positioned within the Parcel Square building and has a forecourt; both would be the subject of demolition under the proposals. Cycle Heaven and Enterprise are existing commercial operators in the station and supports other transport related infrastructure within the station, reinforcing the guidance of the NPPF in paragraph 103, which seeks to limit the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of transport modes.
5.53 Representations from the managing director of Cycle Heaven were received to the original scheme (and due to the issues raised are covered in the accompanying planning application), and highlighted concerns regarding the future viability of Cycle Heaven at the Station. The original scheme sought to provide Cycle Heaven within the southern train shed, however this has been reconsidered and is considered to be more appropriate to be located in the North Train Shed, where there is existing connectivity to existing cycle routes. It is unclear whether Cycle Heaven intend to continue to operate from the Station.
5.54 The applicant has provided an overview of the existing core areas of the station and how these are utilised by existing retailers and commercial partners. In addition there are some freestanding units in other areas of the concourse and platforms, although these are limited and generally discouraged, taking into account the recommendation (No.7) of the CDS (2013) that seeks a commercial retail strategy for the station with an aim of removing all kiosks and install all retail units within core buildings. Two of the pods are intended to replace existing units that assist in supporting transport related businesses and help to continue the offer of a choice of transport modes in this transport interchange. It is considered that other non-transport related businesses should not be able to operate from these pods, and if Cycle Heaven or Enterprise, or any other transport related operator do not wish to occupy any of the units, then they should be removed. This would help to alleviate some of their harm to the features of special architectural or historic interest of the Station building.
5.55 There has been limited information provided in respect to the storage pod, in terms of what storage provision is required and whether there other areas where it can be accommodated. However it is acknowledged that available space within the inner and outer concourse’s is limited and generally occupied by existing commercial occupiers and secured by contract with the Station’s operators. Information has been provided that the storage areas are for the storage of goods and waste for the retail units on the platforms. It has been highlighted that the location within the north train shed is ideally placed due to this being the current and continued location for deliveries and is closer to the lift and northern service tunnel that provides access to other platforms.
5.56 As with the south train shed, the applicant is seeking the three pods as a permanent addition, but which could be removable if/when proposals are developed for the western station entrance and there is the potential to re-provide this accommodation. There are no timeframes for when this may be. However there is concern that this pods remain in situ longer than necessary, particularly given the level of harm that would arise as a result. Officers therefore consider that it would be reasonable to impose a time limit of 5 years for the pods. This would enable the applicants and partners to consider their space requirements in greater detail, with a view to developing other areas of the station to alleviate this current shortfall, following the implementation of other parts of the scheme. Further, whilst a new development conservation management plan is in development, this does not involve the LPA, and it is recommended that a condition could require the submission of a Station masterplan, with a particular strategy upon commercial and retail provision, to manage the current and any future accommodation and storage requirements of the Station.
5.57 There has been an effort by the applicants to reduce the mass and dominance of the three individual pods, although the pods are informed by the like-for like replacement of existing provision. However, their position against the decorative flank wall and the brick arches of the train shed that forms the western façade of the Principal Hotel is considered to result in harm to these identified features of special architectural or historic interest. Whilst assessed as being less than substantial harm, the introduction of the three pods are quantified as being at the upper end of less than substantial harm.
Conclusion of Harm
5.58 As detailed above, the proposals will impact four key areas of the Railway Station; the Portico, Parcel Square area and the North and South Train Sheds. These areas are individually significant in their own right as described above, as well as collectively helping to contribute the overall significance of the Station. The station has generally high levels of aesthetic, historical, evidential and communal interest, which contributes to the high significance of the Station.
5.59 The assessment concludes that each of the individual proposals will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. The proposed building in the south train shed and the three individual pods proposed for the north train shed have been quantified at being at the upper end of less than substantial harm.
5.60 Paragraph 196 of the Framework sets out that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be outweighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
5.61 Planning Practice Guidance sets out what is meant by the term public benefits and states that:
“Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 8). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits, for example, works to a listed private dwelling which secure its future as a designated heritage asset could be a public benefit. Examples of heritage benefits may include:
- sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting
- reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset
- securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation”
(Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 18a-020-20190723 Revision date: 23 07 2019)
- Public Benefits
5.62 This application relates to works to the Grade II* listed York Railway Station, that are required in connection to the wider proposals referred to as the ‘York Station frontage’.
5.63 The applicant sets out the benefits of the wider scheme that these are a part of, namely the major improvement to passenger facilities and experience, the substantial enhancements to the setting of highly significant heritage assets, namely York City Walls and York Station. More specific to the proposals considered in this application, the applicant sets out the public benefit of maintaining the effective operation of the railway station and its associated functions and the health and well-being of TOC’s staff.
5.64 In detail, the public benefits of the proposals derived under each of the objectives (economic, social and environmental) are outlined below.
Economic Objective
5.65 One of the key areas of the scheme is the creation of a gateway into the city. The current gateway is disappointing and gives the impression of vehicle dominance and congestion (YCHCCA Appraisal Part Two: Management Strategy and York Station Frontage: Illustrative Masterplan). This area also forms an important interchange between different modes of transport.
5.66 The economic vision set out in the Council’s York New City Beautiful: Toward and Economic Vision sets out that the city must invest in the long term in the city’s public realm and movement infrastructure highlighting that skilled and talented people will drive the economy, but such human capital is not attracted by the power of higher wages alone; quality of place and the rich diversity of activity affect personal and business location decisions. Therefore enhancing the physical appearance of the city, improving retail and commercial activity, ensuring better accessibility and improving image and perception are all important (page 23). It is therefore considered that the improvement to the city’s gateway and the transport interchange presents opportunities to address potential barriers to investment, support local economic growth and productivity which is a key direction of the Framework as set out in Chapter 6 ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’ and paragraphs 80 and 81 c).
5.67 The railway station is home to a number of businesses, and in particular Cycle Heaven is a York company that has been established in the city for over 25years. The proposals offer the opportunity to relocate this business within the station area taking into account its local business needs; being located adjacent to existing cycle links whilst also allowing wider opportunities for development.
5.68 A key benefit of the scheme is the potential to improve the existing highway infrastructure, which follows the transport hierarchy outlined in paragraph 110 a) of the Framework that promotes pedestrian and cycling first, then public transport (rail and bus travel). The revised highway layout will also minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and along with other controls would avoid unnecessary street clutter. Other aspects of the proposal includes the provision of electric vehicle charging points, the needs of people with disabilities or reduced mobility being considered, being able to continue servicing to the Station and local businesses and the consideration of service and emergency accessibility, however this is a key consideration for the effective operation of the railway station. It is considered that the development would satisfy the transport objectives outlined in paragraph 110 (a-e) of the Framework.
5.69 The station frontage area with the transport interchange is already a sustainable location that offers a genuine choice of transport modes, however the improvements to the highway infrastructure will create the conditions to maximise the sustainability of this part of the city, and be a focus for significant development. The redistribution of road traffic in this location will further reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health. It is identified that the scheme, with the relocation of taxis out of the Portico will significantly improve air quality in this location.
Social Objective
5.70 A key focus of the wider Station Frontage scheme is the creation of an improved experience of users of the station and the approach to it. It is considered therefore that the development would achieve a well-designed place, complying with paragraph 127 of the Framework.
5.71 In summary, the development will: a) function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development; b) be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) be sympathetic to local character and history; d) maintain a strong sense of place, creating an attractive, welcoming and distinctive place to live, work and visit; e) support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create a place that is safe, inclusive and accessible which promotes health and well-being with consideration of crime and disorder.
Environmental Objective
5.72 The environmental objective is to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment. As detailed in the economic objective section, the wider scheme for the York Station Frontage has identified a particular focus upon improving or mitigating impacts of pollutants and air quality, in accordance with para. 181 of the Framework.
5.73 Whilst the impact of the scheme on the heritage asset, in this case the Grade II* listed railway station, has been discussed in length, it is noted acknowledged that the development proposals will conserve the heritage asset, making a positive contribution to sustainable communities including their economic vitality and local character and distinctiveness (para. 192 b of the Framework).
5.74 Other public benefits to the wider heritage assets within the site are also identified and this includes enhancements to the setting of the York City Walls and York Station, as well as other individually listed buildings, the Railway Institute as well as improving the character and appearance of the York Central Historic Core Conservation Area and character area 21, which this site sites within.
- Optimum Viable Use
5.75 It is important to note that the Station remains in the use for which it was originally constructed, the use being continuous since the date of construction, along with the current use of the station being its optimum use.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 It is outlined in the main body of the report that the impact of the proposals at individual areas of the station, such as the Portico, North and South Train Sheds and the Parcel Square area, is assessed as resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. In the case of the freestanding buildings and pods in the north and south train sheds, this harm is assessed at being at the upper level of less than substantial harm. Regard is had to paragraphs 193 and 194 of the NPPF which state that great weight should be given to the conservation of listed buildings (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be) and any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.
6.2 It is demonstrated that the wider York Station Frontage scheme and also the individual parts of the proposal that would impact upon the railway station would deliver economic, social and environmental objectives. The objectives demonstrate that public benefits would be derived from the proposed development. The public benefits outlined in paragraphs 5.65 to 5.75 above are considered to collectively outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to this Grade II* railway station. The application therefore complies with paragraph 196 of the NPPF. Having special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting in line with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and giving considerable importance and weight to the identified harm, it is considered that the proposals would have an acceptable effect on this designated heritage asset.
6.3 The objection from Historic England requires that the Listed Building Consent
application is referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration before consent
can be granted.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to confirmation from the Secretary of State that the application will not be ‘called in’, following the referral of the application [in accordance with Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications Direction 2015.
1 TIMEL2 Development start within 3 yrs (LBC/CAC)
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and other submitted details:-
- LBC.YRK.003 Rev C General Arrangement- Ground Floor Plan - Proposed
- LBC.YRK.009 Rev C Parcel Square - Floor Plan Proposed
- LBC.YRK.012 Rev C Parcel Square - Section EE Proposed
- LBC.YRK.015 Rev B Parcel Square - Staff Accommodation Section BB Proposed
- LBC.YRK.018 Rev B Parcel Square - Elevation 2-2 Proposed
- LBC.YRK.021 Rev B South Shed - Elevation 1-1 Proposed
- LBC.YRK.023 Rev B North Shed- Elevation 3-3 Proposed
- LBC.YRK.024 Rev B New Roof Access Stair Plan and Section
- LBC.YRK.042 Rev A RI - Elevations - Proposed
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CB-1051 Portico Floor Plan Proposed
Demolition plans
- LBC.YRK.002 Rev B General Arrangement Ground - Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC.YRK.008 Rev B Parcel Square - Floor Plan Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC-YRK.011 Rev C Parcel Square - Section EE Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC.YRK.014 Rev B Parcel Square - Staff Accommodation Section BB Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC.YRK.017 Rev B Parcel Square - Elevation 2-2 Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC.YRK.020 Rev B South Shed - Elevation 1-1 Demolitions and Alterations
Reports
- Clarification Note on Northern Trainshed Buildings dated 4 November 2020 (Job Ref 257903)
- Clarification Note on Southern Trainshed Buildings dated 25 January 2021 (Job Ref 257903)
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.
3 The buildings and area referred to as Parcel Square as indicated on drawing LBC.YRK.008 Rev B 'Parcel Square Floor Plan - Demolitions/Alterations' shall not be demolished before listed building consent for redevelopment is granted and a legally binding contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site for which listed building consent has been entered into and evidence of the contract has been produced to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, or in the absence of such a contract an alternative confirmation of commencement of the development has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the premature demolition of the buildings does not take place to the detriment of the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4 Prior to the demolition of the area referred to as Parcel Square as indicated on drawing LBC.YRK.008 Rev B 'Parcel Square Floor Plan - Demolitions/Alterations', samples to be used for the proposed Parcel Square Infill and canopy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
This will include samples of the enamelled metal panels (including pattern/design motifs and colour) and lancet windows should be provided as a sample panel of sufficient size to judge the overall effect of the design. This should also be provided with the sample of the canopy so that they can be judged together.
Other details and samples shall include, but are not limited to:
- all fixing and joint details
- fenestration detail and colour
- door details and colour
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Note: Due to current coronavirus restrictions, it would be appreciated if sample materials could be made available for inspection at the site. Please make it clear in your approval of details application when materials will be available for inspection and where they are located.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
5 Notwithstanding any proposed materials specified on the approved drawings or in the application form submitted with the application, samples of the external materials, including colour and finish to be used for the building located within the south train shed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority prior to the installation of the building within the south train shed.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Note: Due to current coronavirus restrictions, it would be appreciated if sample materials could be made available for inspection at the site. Please make it clear in your approval of details application when materials will be available for inspection and where they are located.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
6 Notwithstanding any proposed materials specified on the approved drawings or in the application form submitted with the application, samples of the external materials, including colour and finish to be used for the pods within the north train shed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority prior to the installation of the three pods within the north train shed.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Note: Due to current coronavirus restrictions, it would be appreciated if sample materials could be made available for inspection at the site. Please make it clear in your approval of details application when materials will be available for inspection and where they are located.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
7 Prior to the demolition of the area referred to as Parcel Square as indicated on drawing LBC.YRK.008 Rev B 'Parcel Square Floor Plan - Demolitions/Alterations', large scaled details (1:10) of the new entrance canopy to parcel square shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
8 Prior to the installation of the three pods within the north train shed, large scale sectional details (1:10) though the external wall detailing any guttering to be used, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The three pods in the north train shed shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
9 Prior to the installation of the building within the south train shed, large scale sectional details (1:10) though the external wall detailing any guttering to be used, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building in the south train shed shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
10 Any works to the Portico shall be undertaken in accordance with the details outlined on the approved drawing YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CB-1051 Portico Floor Plan Proposed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
11 Prior to the installation of the three pods within the north train shed, details, including large scale details at 1:10 of any mechanical and electrical (M&E) services including service runs, extract duct and intact ducts and plant that may be required, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The three pods in the north train shed shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
12 Prior to the installation of the building within the south train shed, details, including large scale details at 1:10 of any mechanical and electrical (M&E) services including service runs, extract duct and intact ducts and plant that may be required, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building in the south train shed shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
13 Prior to the demolition of the area referred to as Parcel Square as indicated on drawing LBC.YRK.008 Rev B 'Parcel Square Floor Plan - Demolitions/Alterations', details, including large scale details at 1:10 of any mechanical and electrical (M&E) services including service runs, extract duct and intact ducts and plant that may be required, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Parcel Square infill shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
14 Within 15 years of the date of the southern building in the south train shed being brought into use, the building in the south train shed and all associated infrastructure shall be removed in its entirety and the area returned to its previous condition.
Reason: Listed building consent is granted on a temporary basis to allow further consideration of space requirements in the future and to understand the progress on the development of a western station entrance at the Railway Station. The retention of the building as a permanent structure would harm the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.
15 Within 5 years of the date of the three pods in northern train shed being brought into use, the three pods in the northern train shed and all associated infrastructure shall be removed in its entirety and the area returned to its previous condition.
Reason: Listed building consent is granted on a temporary basis to allow further consideration of space requirements in the future and to understand the progress on the development of a western station entrance at the Railway Station. The retention of the building as a permanent structure would harm the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.
16 Two of the pods identified for 'Enterprise' and 'Cycle Heaven' shall only be occupied by a transport related business/operator. If, within 6 months of any lease expiring, or another transport related operator does not lease any of the two pods, then they shall be removed in their entirety and the area returned to its previous condition.
Reason: Listed building consent is granted on the basis that they are replacing existing accommodation within the station and a transport related business will assist in continuing to offer a choice of transport modes at this transport interchange. The retention of the building as a permanent structure would harm the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.
17 Prior to the installation of the three pods in the north shed and the south shed building, a retail, storage and Train Operating Companies (TOCs) accommodation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This accommodation strategy shall set out how the station will manage the current and any future train operating companies accommodation, retail and storage requirements of the station. The strategy as approved shall be implemented in accordance with its terms.
Reason: Listed building consent is granted for the temporary structures on the basis that they are replacing existing accommodation within the station and a strategy will manage existing and future provision. The retention of the buildings as a permanent structure would harm the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.
18 Prior to the installation of the building within the south train shed, large scale sectional details (1:10) detailing the roof access stair within the flank wall of the southern train shed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The roof access stair in the southern train shed shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
19 Following the removal of the temporary buildings in the north and south train sheds hereby approved, within two months of their removal, details of any repairs or making good of the floor or walls of the train shed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any repairs shall be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and to comply with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
20 The building in the south train shed hereby approved shall only be occupied by Train Operating Companies (TOCs) or used for storage as indicated on drawing LBC.YRK.009 Rev C 'Parcel Square Floor Plan - Proposed'.
Reason: Listed building consent is granted on the basis that this building is replacing existing accommodation within the Station, and any other uses may not justify the harm to the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.
Contact details:
Case Officer: Lindsay Jenkins
Tel No: 01904 554575