|
Date: |
4 February 2021 |
Ward: |
Micklegate |
|
Team: |
West Area |
Parish: |
Micklegate Planning Panel |
|
Reference: |
19/00535/FULM |
|
Application at: |
York Station Frontage Station Road York |
|
For: |
Demolition of Queen Street Bridge and construction of new highway; reinstatement and construction of earth ramparts and retaining walls to part of the City Wall. Demolition of pedestrian bridge and works to the York Railway Institute elevation; demolition of Band Room, demolition of extensions to rear of RI Gymnasium. Construction of multi-storey car park. Part demolition station building (Parcel Square) and construction of a new facade, roof and canopy and associated works to retained elevations. Relocation of electricity sub-station. Public realm and highway improvements along Queen Street and Station Road. Relocation of cycle store associated with George Stephenson House. Demolition of Unipart Rail Service Centre building and construction of temporary surface car park, alterations to existing car park and taxi drop-off arrangements.
|
|
By: |
City Of York Council |
|
Application Type: |
Major Full Application |
|
Target Date: |
12 February 2021 |
|
Recommendation: |
Approve |
1.0 PROPOSAL
Proposal
1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the re-organisation of the existing highway infrastructure in the area surrounding York Railway Station, from Lendal Gyratory to Blossom Street, including the area surrounding York Railway Institute (RI).
1.2 The application has been the subject of changes to the initial scheme and additional information submitted in order to respond to consultation responses, design development and the scheme’s funding.
1.3 The following works are included within the application:
- removal of Queen Street Bridge and construction of new highway at grade level including loop around Railway Institute gymnasium and Water Tower
- alterations to highways layout including the provision of a fully segregated 3m wide cycle lane running behind the bus stops
- demolition of Railway Institute Band Room
- demolition of rear extensions to Railway Institute Gymnasium and provision of parking
- removal of pedestrian bridge and works to the Railway Institute (22 Queen Street) front elevation
- retention of vehicular access to Queen Street properties (No’s 14, 15 and 16), removal of existing on-street parking and widening of footway and the installation of railings to the front of No’s 11-20 Queen Street
- reinstatement and construction of earth ramparts and retaining walls to part of the City Walls in the vicinity of Tofts Tower.
- alterations to existing long and short stay car parks. Erection of multi storey (4 storey) car park on the site of the existing long stay car park
- demolition of Unipart Rail Service Centre Building off Cinder Lane and replacement with a temporary car park for a period of 5 years (providing 278 approx. spaces)
- Public realm and highway improvements along Queen Street/Station Road including relocated bus facilities, altered and new pedestrian and cycle facilities and associated hard and soft landscaping.
- relocated bin and cycle stores for George Stephenson House
- Works to York Railway Station
- demolition of ‘Parcel Square’ buildings; construction of new façade and canopy and rearranged internal accommodation to form new taxi rank and drop off
- public realm improvements to Tea Room Square including landscaping and paving
- new substation and refuse store to serve Railway Station
1.4 The following works to the railway station do not require planning permission, as they are internal structures within the station, however they are subject to listed building consent, but have been included here for clarity purposes, to understand the full extent of the scheme;
- new paving within Portio
- 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
1.5 The scheme has been designed to be delivered in three phases. Based on the current understanding of funding availability it is likely that these phases will be delivered sequentially, however if full funding is available the phases could be combined and delivered as a single construction phase. The construction phasing has been revised since the original scheme and now generally comprises of:
Phase 1: demolition of Queen Street Bridge, Unipart building, provision of pedestrian, cycle and public transport infrastructure to the front of the Station
Phase 2: reorganisation of parking including construction of MSCP and works to highway infrastructure around the Railway Institute
Phase 3: demolition of Parcel Square and construction of new façade and canopy and other works within and surrounding the Railway Station
The Application
1.6 The applicant for the scheme is City of York Council. The partner organisations includes Network Rail, train providers, West Yorkshire Combined Authorities (WYCA) and Canada Life.
1.7 York Railway Station and its environs are owned by Network Rail, with the station platforms, buildings and station forecourt leased to LNER as Station Facility Operator. The majority of the Railway Institute and Queen Street Works area are within Network’s Rail ownership, with the exception of the NCP car park, with the owner having a right of access over Network Rail land. Of the remainder of the buildings, the majority are occupied by the Railway Institute, although there a few warehouses/buildings that are occupied by Network Rail for storage purposes.
1.8 The application is supported by an accompanying application for listed building consent (19/00542/LBC) for the internal and external works to the Grade II* listed Railway Station. As the works will affect a Schedule Monument (City Walls) a schedule monument consent (SMC) 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). However, the application is supported by a schedule monument strategy.
1.9 The proposal constitutes schedule 2 development under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. In August 2018 a scoping opinion was sought from the local planning authority (18/02372/EIASP). In November 2018 the council confirmed that the development would be likely to have significant environmental effects and issued its formal opinion on the aspects of the environment that should be considered. The information in the submitted environmental statement is sufficient for the local planning authority to understand the likely environmental effects of the proposals and any required mitigation. An environmental statement addendum has been submitted to update the findings of the 2019 environmental statement where there are proposed changes to the scheme. Where there is no potential for a topic to be affected by the proposed changes, the original conclusions in the 2019 environmental statement are unaffected. The EIA Regulations require this environmental information as well as representations received about the environmental effects of the development to be taken into account in the determination of the planning application.
1.10 It is acknowledged that the scheme has been submitted as a whole development scheme, however some individual aspects may constitute permitted development if they were undertaken on their own, such as the improvement to the road if undertaken by the Highway Authority. Additionally, the internal structures proposed to the North and South train sheds, along with any works within the Portico constitute permitted development under Class A, Schedule 2, Part 8 Transport related development. However as they form important elements in the whole development scheme, they may be referenced in this report.
Application Site
1.11 The application site comprises York Railway Station, primarily its frontage and surrounds, and the north and south train sheds. The site extends from Blossom Street, along Queen Street and along Station Road to the south (front) of York Railway Station, partly extending to the City Walls and including areas (to the front and side) of George Stephenson House occupied by Network Rail. It also involves the areas surrounding the York RI and associated buildings as well as existing car parking areas for the station to the west of the station. This part of the site is bounded by the railway lines and residential properties on Lowther Terrace. The site extends up to Lendal Gyratory to the west, adjacent to the Principal Hotel’s gardens.
1.12 The areas of the Railway Station that are affected by the proposal 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).
1.13 The site also includes an area on the other side of the Station, currently occupied by Unipart building, accessed off Leeman Road and Cinder Lane.
Relevant planning history
1.14 There are a number of recent permissions that relate to parts of the site that are considered to be of relevance to the proposals;
Scarborough Bridge Ref: 17/03049/FULM
Replace 1.8m footpath/cyclepath with 3.6m wide footpath/cyclepath with associated alterations to bridge abutments, ramps and stair access arrangements
Application permitted 22 March 2018
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 Central, Leeman Road Ref: 18/01884/OUTM
Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the redevelopment of York Central, Leeman Road to provide a mixed-use development of up to 379,729 m2 of floorspace Gross External Area (GEA) primarily comprising up to 2,500 homes (Class C3), between 70,000 m2 and 87,693 m2 of office use (Class B1a), up to 11,991 m2 GEA of retail and leisure uses (Classes A1-A5 or D2), hotel with up to 400 bedrooms (Class C1), up to 12,120 m2 GEA of non-residential institutions (Class D1) for expansion of the National Railway Museum, multi-storey car parks and provision of community uses all with associated works including new open space, ancillary car parking, demolition of and alterations to existing buildings and associated vehicular, rail, cycle and pedestrian access improvements.
Application permitted 24.12.2019
It is noted that the outline consent for York Central permitted the demolition of the Unipart building.
20/00710/REMM Reserved matters application for layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access for the construction of the primary vehicle route and associated roads, infrastructure, landscaping and alterations to the existing road network pursuant to outline planning permission 18/01884/OUTM; Application permitted 13.11.2020
Pre-application engagement by the applicant
1.15 Planning policy guidance encourages developers to engage with the local planning authority and third parties prior to submitting a planning application.
1.16 The Railway Station and surrounding area is a key role in the development of York Central. As the proposals for York Central have progressed, the Council have sought to reorganise the awkward and confusing entrance to the railway station. A Masterplan based on 8 key features (including removing Queen St bridge, taxi ranks and drop off/pick up, bus stops, parking, pedestrian crossing, Tea Room Square, station square and cycle routes and parking) was drawn up to improve the use of space in front of York Station.
1.17 A consultation process took place from the 11th June 2018 to the 8th July 2018 on the York Station Front Masterplan proposals. The consultation incorporated drop-in events, walking tours, an online questionnaire, social media engagement and stakeholder meetings.
1.18 In total 14 stakeholder groups engaged with the process along with 1,486 public responses. These are covered in the Statement of Community Involvement. The comments raised in this consultation process were mostly positive with a focus on specific matters within the overall scheme. Many of the concerns raised through the consultation process have informed and shaped the proposals with many also to be addressed through the final detail of the public realm design.
2.0 POLICY BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
2.1 The site is within the Central Historic Core Conservation Area (YCHCCA). This is split into 24 character areas and the site straddles two character areas, the majority of the application site is within Character Area 22: Railway Area, with the top of Queen St, where it joins Blossom Street is within Character Area 23: Blossom Street and Nunnery Lane. The Council has a statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to consider the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of designated conservation areas.
2.2 The works will affect part of the City Wall (Tofts Tower) and its ramparts. The City Wall and its gate are part of a single schedule monument listing (National Monument No. 13280) and Grade I listed. The Railway Station (including York Tap (formerly Ladies Tea Room)) is Grade II* listed. Also other listed buildings within the application site include the Taxi Kiosk (Grade II) and the Railway Institute Water Tower and Workshop (Grade II). There are a number of other listed buildings situated close to the application site. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, 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.
2.3 Case law has made clear that a finding of harm to a conservation area or 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 to give effect to its statutory duties under sections 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act. There is a "strong presumption" against the grant of planning permission in such cases.
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
2.4 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
2.5 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).
2.6 The relevant sections of the NPPF include sections 8 ‘Promoting healthy and safe communities’, 9 ‘Promoting sustainable transport’, 12 ‘Achieving well-designed places’, 14 ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’, 15 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ and 16 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’.
2.7 Section 16 of the NPPF includes the following polcies in relation to heritage assets:
- Paragraph 184 states that heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.
- Paragraph 190 requires local planning authorities to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset). They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
- Paragraph 192(c) requires local planning authorities to take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
- Paragrpah 193 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the assets conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.
- Paragrpah 194 states that harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.
- 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). It does not automatically mean that less than substantial harm is more acceptable; rather it means that a different test is applied. 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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
- Paragraph 197 states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
Draft Local Plans
2.8 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.
2.9 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).
2.10 The following policies within the 2018 Draft Plan which are directly and most relevant to the consideration of this proposal can be attributed moderate weight:
DP2 Sustainable Development
DP3 Sustainable Communities
SS3 York City Centre
HW1 Protecting Existing Facilities
D1 Placemaking
D2 Landscape and Setting
D4 Conservation Areas
D5 Listed Buildings
D6 Archaeology
D7 The significance of Non-designated Heritage Assets
D10 York City Walls and St Marys Abbey Walls (York Walls)
D11 Extensions and alterations to existing buildings
GI1 Green Infrastructure
GI3 Green Infrastructure Network
GI4 Trees and Hedgerows
ENV1 Air Quality
ENV2 Managing Environmental Quality
ENV3 Land Contamination
ENV4 Sustainable Drainage
CC1 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation and Storage
CC2 Sustainable Design and Construction of New Development
T1 Sustainable Access
T2 Strategic public transport improvement
T3 York Railway Station and associated operational facilities
T6 Development at or near public transport corridors, interchanges and facilities
2.11 The following policies are also relevant to the planning application. They have outstanding objections but are consistent with national policy and can therefore be given limited weight (the objections will be resolved through the Local Plan Examination process).
SS1 – Delivering Sustainable Growth for York
SS4 - York Central
Emerging local plan evidence base
2.12 The evidence base that underpins the emerging policies is a material consideration and 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.
Economy and Retail
SD069 - York City Centre Movement and Accessibility Framework Strategy and Proposals (2011)
Transport and Communications
SD074 – City of York Council Local Transport Plan 3 2011-2031 (2011)
Transport and Infrastructure
SD128 - Infrastructure Delivery Plan (May 2018)
Placemaking Heritage and Culture
SD103 – City of York Heritage Topic Paper Update (September 2014)
Green Infrastructure
SD080 City of York Local Biodiversity Action Plan (2017)
Environmental Quality and Flood Risk
SD093 – City of York Council Low Emission Strategy (2012)
Climate Change
SD116 – A Climate Change Action Plan for York (2010)
Conservation Area Appraisal
2.13 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. The conservation area boundary in the railway area has been extended to include the former locomotive works (off Queen Street) (Railway Institute) and railway station platforms and canopy.
- York Central Historic Core Conservation Area Part One- Understanding the City
- Character Area No. 22: Railway Area
- Character Area No. 23: Blossom Street and Nunnery Lane
- York Central Historic Core Conservation Area Part Two- Management Strategy
2.14 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.
Other documents/guidance considered to be of relevance
- Department for Transport Cycle Infrastructure Design: Local Transport Note 1/20 July 2020
2.15 This national guidance provides five overarching design principles; Coherent, Direct, Safe, Comfortable and Attractive with inclusive design and accessibility running through all these to provide infrastructure that caters for the broadest range of people.
- Historic England Guidance
Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment (April 2008)
2.16 This guidance identifies four types of heritage value that an asset may hold: aesthetic, communal, historic and evidential value and help to decide the most efficient and effective way of managing the heritage asset to sustain its overall value to society.
- Conservation Development Strategy (2013)
2.17 There 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.
- The Queen Street Bridge and its Environs Report: an archaeological, historical and technical study dated 01.03.2018
2.18 This report provides an understanding of the technical, historical and archaeological aspects of the Queen Street Bridge to help inform elements of the scheme design, particularly the demolition and reconstruction of the highway at grade. It is not considered to carry any weight in the determination of the application, but provides background information in respect to Queen Street Bridge.
3.0 CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL
Forward Planning
3.1 The emerging plan’s preparation is at an advanced stage and there are a lack of significant objection to the emerging policies relevant to this application (DP2, DP3, SS3, HW1, D1, D4, D5, D6, D7, D10, D11, CC1, CC2, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, T2, T3 and T6) which are consistent with the Framework and therefore should be applied with moderate weight.
3.2 Draft policy SS4: York Central can only be afforded limited weight. Although consistent with national policy, this policy has outstanding objections, which will be resolved through the Local Plan Examination.
3.3 The applicant has now submitted information in relation to carbon reduction and sustainable design and construction to address draft policies CC1 and CC2. They both apply to the proposed multi storey car park. Policy CC1 requires all new buildings to achieve a reasonable reduction in carbon emissions of at least 28% unless it can be demonstrated that this is not viable. The 28% reduction relates to reduction through renewable energy sources, but can also be achieved through a combined package including energy efficiency which is set out in Policy CC2. For non-residential buildings, the 28% reduction applies and in meeting this, Policy CC2 sets out that BREEAM Excellent (or equivalent) should be achieved. It has been agreed that an alternative method of assessment, CEEQUAL which assesses the design and construction of civil engineering works, landscaping and public ream, is a more appropriate assessment scheme, falling under the ‘or equivalent’ of Policy CC2. Whilst BREEAM and CEEQUAL are two different types of assessment schemes and the scoring systems cannot be compared, it is our view that as for BREEAM, excellent should be sought for CEEQUAL assessments. This is in line with the aim of the policies set out in the Local Plan to be ambitious in their requirements for new developments to reflect the national commitment to reducing carbon emissions and the Council’s ambitions to tackle climate change in York. However, it is noted that the different levels of Awards should not be seen as inferior to each other when comparing as they are both beyond the legal minimum of environmental and social performance in the industry. Should, in the planning balance ‘very good’ be considered appropriate this standard still represents advanced good practice so is to be welcomed.
3.4 To ensure compliance with Policy HW1 it is considered that the replacement of the Railway Institute Band Room should be secured by condition.
Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development (Conservation Architect)
3.5 Removal of Queen Street Bridge- No objections are raised to this element of the application. Its removal will enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the various heritage assets affected by the proposals. The re-levelling will, certainly, better reveal the significance of the heritage assets in line with Para. 200 of the Framework.
3.6 Parcel Square- 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.
3.7 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 cochère 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. The design is recessive enough to reflect the original design intention and that the simple monochrome colour palette reinforces this. 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.
3.8 Multi Storey Car Park - I am supportive of this element of the application as the proposed design reflects the history and the buildings of the site which, I believe, allows it to fit into its context. Although the views towards the station will be altered, as you approach by train from the south, I think this has been sensitively handled with no resultant harm to the setting of the station. In fact significance is better revealed in other ways, due to the proposed MSCP being aligned with the original (and lost) track layout.
3.9 The choice of materials palette is appropriate in this location and the vertical emphasis and rhythmic bay pattern is simple and reflects the functional Victorian buildings that survive and the others that once occupied the site. As the design is not completely resolved, conditions will be required.
Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development (Archaeology)
3.10 York Station and the surrounding area is located within a designated Area of Archaeological Importance. These comments specifically deal with the impact to below-ground heritage assets and the City Walls.
3.11 Preliminary observations noted that the location of the proposed MSCP has been excluded from the desk-based assessment, however archaeological evaluation adjacent to the site has identified the presence of burials and it therefore there is high probability that Roman burials will survive within the footprint of the proposed decked car park. At this stage, the LPA we are unable to make an informed decision on the impact of the decked car park on sub-surface archaeological deposits.
3.12 The applicant has carried out a desk-based assessment and several rounds of intrusive evaluation (comprising trenches, test pits and boreholes as well as monitoring of GI works) confirmed that there is the potential for well-preserved deposits to exist across the area but 19th century railway and associated works have truncated or removed large amounts of the archaeological resource.
3.13 York Archaeological Trust (YAT) have undertaken investigations at tower 13 (Tofts Tower) to record the foundations of Tofts Tower and adjacent City Walls. This provided further information on the rebuilding of the tower and depth of foundation. Monitoring work has taken place over the past year to provide baseline data on general levels of movement of the wall and rampart. Monitoring will continue to take place during the proposed works in Queen Street area to alert engineers to any unusual movement within the ramparts or the City Walls themselves.
3.14 Ground investigations works around the Unipart building were monitored in 2018 by YAT; no archaeological features were noted. Specific archaeological evaluation took place during June-July 2020 in this area as part of the York Central scheme; a Roman burial was located c.800mm below modern ground surface on the north-west edge of the building. A Roman pit was also noted in the deepest part of an evaluation trench on the north-east side.
3.15 An archaeological evaluation was carried out on the site of the (now) proposed MSCP which confirmed that railway buildings (in this instance fitting sheds) survive beneath the modern car park make up levels. It was noted that re-deposited Roman material was noted in trenches outside of the shed footprints confirming the presence of disturbed Roman archaeology in this area. A layer of organic material (peat and silt) was noted in the SE corner of the plot and the nature of this material is still under investigation. Results from wider deposit modelling studies in the adjacent York Central site suggest this material my form part of a kettle hole and will require further investigation.
3.16 In summary, these investigations have proved that there is the potential for organic deposits, pockets of isolated in-situ Roman material, including burials, to survive outside of landscaped areas and 18th century building footprints. The proposed demolitions, construction works, and service diversion/creation all have the potential to negatively impact on any surviving archaeological resource. This resource will largely relates to the Roman period and 19th century railway archaeology.
3.17 An archaeological watching brief will be required on all ground works including grubbing up of any foundations following initial demolition, installation of service and construction. A burial license should be applied for in advance should in-situ burial removal be required.
3.18 An archaeological excavation will be required in areas where significant archaeological deposits survive which are unable to be preserved in situ. Time must be allowed for excavation of deposits and recording of features/structures including 19th century railway infrastructure.
3.19 In the area of the proposed car park further palaeo-environmental assessment and dating of the organic deposit noted in the evaluation will be required to investigate the kettlehole in this area and try to better understand the state of preservation of this deposits. Given the current difficulties on gaining intrusive access to this car park area this can take place as part of the mitigation excavation.
Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development (Landscape Architect)
3.20 Following the revised plans it is noted that the most significant change to the landscape proposals is the greater dominance of the cycle ways which are wider and more delineated (segregated two-way).
3.21 The improved functionality provided by the scheme at the station frontage is naturally welcomed. The design is simple, but strong and considered suited to the scale and practical complexity of the scheme, and the sensitivity of the built context. The key elements being the trees, the paving, the planting, and street furniture so it is vital that these elements are of high quality design and standard. The public presentation boards and visuals include trees of an established size and there is an expectation for this to be realised since the amenity of the development depends considerably on the establishment of mature greenery.
3.22 The inclusion and establishment of a line of large trees between the bus stops and taxi rank are critical to the success of the landscaping scheme and mitigation for the visual impact of 10 the lanes of traffic (including the cycle lanes), and for the amenity and comfort of users.
3.23 The removal of the Queen Street Bridge presents an opportunity to introduce tree cover within an area (city walls) that could not previously accommodate it. The city walls are identified within the Green Corridors update March 2013, as a green infrastructure corridor of district significance (ref: 11 – ‘City walls’). Previously planted wildflower plugs have successfully established on the ramparts alongside Queen Street. The landscape proposals include the application of a wild flower mix on the proposed rampart earthworks. In order to encourage the establishment of desirable wildflower species in a species-rich sward, on the re-graded ramparts, the top layer of soil should not be too nutritionally rich since this would encourage vigorous growth of coarse grasses and pernicious weeds, so it would be advisable to include a request for the specification of the landscape operations in this area of work within the landscape scheme.
3.24 In regards to existing tree, the two most significant trees within the influence of the site are the large, mature London Plane trees located at the foot of the ramparts on Station Road near to Ivy Cottage (identified as G10 on the tree survey). There is concern that the retaining wall wrapping part way round Ivy Cottage is within the root protection area (RPA) of G10. Whilst there are outline suggestions in the tree survey for general tree protection measures, a fully detailed arboricultural method statement would need to be submitted and approved before commencement of development.
3.25 I have previously requested planting details of the trees, however none are forthcoming. It is understood that the trees will be planted into the ground and there will be raised beds in between them. If trees are to be contained within raised beds they will not achieve a sizeable canopy and present additional maintenance costs and be compatible with retained existing and proposed utilities. Shrub/herbaceous planting within raised beds is welcome, but there must be confirmation that there will be the financial commitment and operational capacity to maintain theses in perpetuity since these are also fundamental to the amenity of the scheme.
3.26 Further details need to be clarified in respect to the extension to the cholera burial ground, which will assist in guiding pedestrians towards the new main crossing point. Previous revisions included two new trees however the latest landscape plans they appear to have been omitted. The trees would be a welcome addition to the treescape and further assist the movement of pedestrians and help blend the new with the old. Additionally, a low level hedge planting along the outer edge of the entire burial ground is recommended, which can reduce the influence of the traffic on this green space and make it more appealing for general use.
3.27 The introduction of a 3m wide segregated, two-way cycle lane through the archway now disrupts the space and setting to the city walls and it is queried whether this is entirely necessary at the expense of free movement across the pedestrian public space.
3.28 The activity and three dimensional aspect of the passage of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians will also reduce the visual impact of this expanse of hard standing, as will the variety in the surface materials, scales and textures. To this end the use of tarmacadam for the vehicle routes is most practical, which will contrast with the York stone paving, the quality of which would have an aesthetic appeal in itself, especially if combined with suitably selected street furniture and trees.
3.29 There is a lot of tactile paving, so for aesthetic reasons it would be advantageous if this could be in stone to match the paving, as suggested in the landscape plan graphics.
3.30 It appears that no details for street furniture have been provided. I assume these would be approved at a later date, however it would be good to know what the intentions are here to be sure that these items are not an afterthought. Therefore I suggest that details are agreed under a pre-commencement condition if possible.
3.31 I would like reassurance that the proposed tree planting across the entire scheme can definitely be delivered. Whilst this may not be a remit of the development, the proposed development would be a very different animal without any street trees – thus the applicant should provide sufficient detail to show that it is feasible to plant the trees into the ground where they are located within paved areas, that would provide suitable volumes of growing medium that will aid the successful establishment of the trees and sustain them in to maturity. Additionally, confirmation of the responsibility for watering and maintenance of the raised beds at tea room Square would be useful at this stage; the oval beds with integral seating and multi-stemmed trees provides a valuable quantity of seating and effective greening of the square.
3.32 All of this information must be provided as an essential pre-commencement condition, if not before determination. These details would also need to be approved for the purposes of highway adoption.
3.33 The possibility to accommodate some trees between the vehicular highway on Queen Street and the terraced properties should be investigated. If feasible, this would improve the amenity of the street and provide some separation between the main highway and the terraced properties thus helping to define the street and improve the visual and physical environment for residents.
Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development (Ecology)
3.34 Bat surveys undertaken in 2017/18 and 2020 have identified that the site does not provide any suitable habitat for foraging/commuting for bats and low level activity was identified. A survey in 2017 found a single pipistrelle day roost within the York RI gymnasium building, however the proposals at this time did not seek alterations to this building. The York RI band room has been identified for demolition located approximately 10m south and there is potential for disturbance through noises and vibration during the demolition process. This building has been identified as having high potential to support roosting bats which could occupy the building in the future and method statement/reasonable avoidance measures to avoid negative impacts on bats recommended.
3.35 Surveys undertaken in 2020 found similar low levels of bat activity, however no roosts were found within the York RI Band room building, York RI Gymnasium building or the water tower. Due to the mobile nature of bats and the timing of the 2020 survey works a precautionary approach is still recommended for the demolition of the York RI band room and the RI Gymnasium in the form of Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAM).
Public Protection
- Air Quality
3.36 An air quality assessment has been undertaken to consider the potential changes in air quality arising from the construction and operation of the proposed scheme. Mitigation measures have been suggested, where appropriate, to ensure any adverse effects on air quality are minimised. A condition relating to a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for minimising the creation of noise, vibration and dust during any demolition, site preparation and construction process is recommended.
- Construction phases
3.37 The increase in heavy goods vehicle movements would be within the normal variation and is a small amount of traffic on this road; the impact will be negligible. Consideration of emission associated with construction traffic accessing the site has been scoped out of the assessment. Mitigation measures for impacts from dust on local sensitive receptors can be adequately managed within a CEMP.
- Operational road traffic emissions
3.38 There is the potential that the proposed scheme will impact existing air quality as a result of road traffic exhaust emissions (such as NO2, PM10 and PM2.5) associated with redistribution of traffic around the proposed scheme during the operational phase. The redistribution of road traffic will improve the flow of traffic, reducing congestion and idling vehicles in front of the station. The modelling indicates that it is likely that pollution will reduce and the long term effect of the scheme on air quality would not be significant. Whilst there is uncertainty over future background pollutant concentrations and vehicle emission improvements, on balance, based on the sensitivity testing undertaken, we agree with the conclusions drawn by the applicant’s consultant in this respect.
It should be noted that the air quality at some residential properties on Queen Street is likely to deteriorate as a result of the scheme due to realignment of the road bringing dwellings closer to the carriageway, although such locations are not predicted to breach health based objectives.
- Electric Vehicle Charging Facilities
3.39 The proposed MSCP has changed location and form. The application states that allowances have been made within the infrastructure of the MSCP to accommodate EV charging spaces in appropriate locations. The standards for EV charging facilities has changed since our original response; the standards are now 5% active provision and 5% passive provision (of total number of spaces) (rather than requiring a minimum of 2% of all parking spaces to be provided with electric vehicle charge points). We highlight that other MSCP within the city, such as St Georges Field, 15% of the spaces will be provided with facilities for charging electric vehicles. It is recommended that at least one publically accessible ‘rapid charger’ is installed within the site boundary for use by general motorists and to facilitate the uptake of electric taxis in the city, which can be secured by condition.
- Noise and Vibration
3.40 The noise monitoring locations and methodology are acceptable, as well as the methodology used within the assessment. Additional information has been provided identifying the proposed mitigation measures to reduce noise levels at receptor R1 (Queen Street residences), where the predicted noise levels are predicted to be at times 23dB above the threshold set against existing noise levels within this area. We are happy for the CEMP condition to be applied.
3.41 The consultant has advised on the predicted noise levels, with noise mitigation measures at Receptors R2 (Oxford House, Lowther Terrace) and this is accepted.
3.42 R3 is a local hotel business that does rely on providing hotel accommodation for guests; including resting space as well as sleeping space. The consultant has provided some additional information on the noise levels that have been predicted at R3 and the measures that can be taken to reduce noise levels during the day. Further work will be required on the noise mitigation measures however I am confident that by employing the correct noise mitigation measures within this area that noise from the works can be reduced to a level that would not have an adverse impact on the operation of the hotel.
- Contaminated Land
3.43 The consultant identifies a number of potential contamination sources; railway use, burial grounds, made ground and current use. Further investigation is recommended including a detailed unexploded ordnance (UXO) study and a ground investigation to characterise thickness and nature of made and natural superficial materials, investigate ground water profiles through ground water monitoring, assess soil contamination to inform re-use or disposal, nature retaining walls and retained material, investigate backfill, earthworks and voids associated with Queen Street Bridge. We consider that Phase 1 report to be acceptable and recommend that planning conditions relating to land contamination are attached to planning permission.
Highways Network Management
3.44 Initially concerns were raised in respect to the detailed design of the proposed walking and cycle routes, bus stop bypass design and taxi drop off. Requests were made to ensure that there was adequate provision for car, motorcycle and cycle parking as well as electric vehicle charging points and more detail on construction traffic.
3.45 Revised comments in respect to the scheme include:
- Walk and cycle routes
3.46 The existing vehicle crossing at 14 Queen Street which serves the rear of No’s. 14, 15 and 16, through an archway is to be retained for all three phases and it is likely to lead to regular conflicting movements between cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles on Queen Street (including frequent bus services. The applicant has submitted additional information and options that whilst not providing a full solution, improves visibility and offers options to address remaining safety issues. There is no highway objection on safety grounds subject to a full road safety audit to consider the scheme as a whole and specifically to include the private vehicular access on Queen Street.
3.47 The revised drawings show much improved facilities for cyclists generally in line with LTN 1/20 principles; some details will need to be revised (in line with LTN 1/20 and for all three phases) to ensure that priorities are made clear between pedestrians, cyclists and drivers; this can be conditioned alongside the adoptable road layout details.
3.48 The land between Scarborough Bridge and the North train shed is not within the control of the applicant and whilst this remains an issue, it is not possible to include a dedicated cycle route and improved pedestrian facilities in this area (between tea Room Square and Scarborough Bridge).
3.49 The revised design has improved and created a wider route for pedestrians and cyclists between Lowther Terrace and Queen Street. Suggest that appropriate street slighting and CCTV to be provided and secured via conditions.
3.50 Provision of cycling parking for Network Rail is now in a more appropriate location and details should be confirmed through condition. In regards to cycle parking at the Station, the proposals indicate that this will be provided at the current level. However an aim of the scheme is to increase cycling to the station and cycle parking provision should be increased/improved accordingly; this should include the temporary car park as well as the north and South train shed. As a minimum a condition should secure the level of cycle parking remains the same as currently offered, within the provision including a mix of Sheffield stands (including wider areas for adapted bikes) and two tier racks.
3.51 Other cycle links and routes (including the bus stop bypass design) have been reviewed and is in line with best practice.
- Taxis, buses, drop-off and servicing
3.52 There is adequate taxi stacking facilities in the taxi rank, supported by possible additional stacking capacity to the rear of the MSCP. Goods servicing in Tea Room Square will have loading limited to evening and night time periods only; a traffic regulation order (TRO) will be required via condition.
3.53 The loop around the RI would be looked at being adopted with the Council becoming the enforcing authority as bus routes will be using the loop to turn around at the station, however if the road is not adopted a planning condition is requested to ensure the station manager enforces parking restrictions.
- Car Parking
3.54 There is a risk that cars accessing the MSCP would queue on the loop road alongside the RI at peak times and blocking buses and other traffic; as a pay on exit operated by ANPR there should not be a need for traffic to queue to get in, but should be secured by condition to address this potential problem. The access to motorcycle parking is unclear but details can be secured by condition. All EV charging should be conditioned.
- Construction Phase
3.55 The transport Assessment concludes that construction traffic will be negligible or minor in the context of existing traffic flows. Detailed information on construction traffic (routes, vehicle types, etc) and a comprehensive construction management plan, taking account of the needs of all road users during the construction phases is required and can be secured by condition.
Bar Walls Manager
3.56 Need to ensure that reports about the monitoring of Tofts Tower are received. The emergency procedures are satisfactory and are covered by the Schedule Monument Consent Strategy.
Flood Risk Management Team
3.57 Evidence should be submitted via conditions to discount the use of infiltration, in areas of the site where new drainage is required, the ground is typically made up of clay-based deposits with low permeability. There are three areas of concern which should be subject to design mythology within the Council’s SuDS Guidance, and includes the area of Parcel Square and the short stay car park and taxi rank/drop-off, the MSCP and the temporary car park following the demolition of the Unipart building. The drainage design for these three areas should be considered alongside public sewer diversion works and water supply apparatus protection measures.
3.58 The development will also require build over and diversion of significant public sewers therefore these will be subject to Yorkshire Water requirements and formal procedure in accordance with Section 185 Water Industry Act 1991. There are also combined sewer overflows (CSO), under the control of Yorkshire Water, located near to the site. Vehicular access, including with large tankers, could be required at any time.
Economic Development
3.59 No comments received.
Emergency Planning
3.60 No comments but it is noted that the site is not within a flood risk area, although the access is.
EXTERNAL
Micklegate Planning Panel
3.61 No objections but comments are made citing;
- the bus stops are positioned too far from the station, there should be undercover access and the shelters should be of adequate size to accommodate the maximum numbers that could be expected at peak periods
- it is welcome that improvements have been made particularly in relation to cycle provision
- MSCP; will be visually dominant even if constructed in similar materials to adjacent structures. Car parking capacity should be reviewed in light of likely post covid-19 working patterns and that the Council is encouraging alternative means of transport. The temporary parking facilities could be retained on a longer term so car parking requirements can be more accurately assessed.
- Parcel Square Infill appears forced rather than mannered; this section of the building would never be read visually with the Ladies Tea Room so it seem irrelevant to echo it. A simple elegant treatment allowing the historic elements to stand out would be a much better option. Consideration should be given to the provision of canopies to maximise undercover access.
- Provision for disabled people; disabled parking days are a long way off from station entrance and covered access routes should be provided where possible and covering for a setting down point for disabled passengers. Resting places should be provided for people with limited mobility. Should meet best practice guidelines set out in BS8300-2:2018 Design for an accessible and inclusive environment Part2: Buildings Code of Practice 20.2 Transport related buildings.
- The landscape design should take every available opportunity to include trees around the site.
Holgate Planning Panel
3.62 No objections are raised to the scheme.
Historic England
3.63 Overall we object to the application on heritage grounds; the application does not meet the NPPF and in particular paras. 124, 127, 131, 185, 189, 192-194 and 200. Detailed comments include:
- Removal of Queen Street Bridge
3.64 Remain supportive of this part of the proposal and continue to agree that its removal and implementation of associated works can enhance the significance of this part of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area, the city wall and setting of the railway station. We consider our pre-application discussions have generated an acceptable level of understanding with regard to the city wall, Tofts Tower, rampart and the Victorian retaining walls. We now consider that the proposed phased removal of Queen Street bridge and the repeated structural monitoring to be undertaken during the removal can be undertaken in such a way that the risk to the stability of the has been removed. Concern remains (relatively minor concern given the scale of the overall scheme) concerning the lack of detail to the proposed public realm improvements to the retaining wall to the reinstated rampart.
3.65 We are happy to defer to the City of York Archaeologist who has provided a very good archaeological assessment of the impact of the whole scheme and proposed a sensible archaeological strategy.
- Parcel Square
3.66 Demolitions proposed for Parcel Square is considered an enhancement and we are supportive of the principle of relocating the taxi rank to this location. 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. In terms of materials, we 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. 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.
3.67 Further information on design and materials for the proposed Parcel Square entrance façade is required and is 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.
- Multi Storey Car Park
3.68 Revised design is considerable improvement on the previous design submitted. Alan Baxter’s Conservation Development Strategy (CDS) (2019/20) refers to some qualities and principles that should be followed when considering any new development at the Queen Street site. These seem to have been taken into account and makes a convincing argument. It is a simplified design with strong vertical emphasis that works well. Red brick is the right choice of material. It is not clear how the articulation around the wall openings is to be detailed, similarly the parapet detailing lacks definition. Clarification on the material or surface treatment for the stair/lift tower and what ‘weathered steel fins’ will look like. Given the sensitivity of the location and scale of intervention, it’s not acceptable for materials to be conditioned.
- General comments
3.69 Concerns remain 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.
3.70 We are supportive of the treatment of space in front of the cottages on Queen street by the inclusion of railings.
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
3.71 Broadly supportive of the proposals to enhance the existing York station frontage and the proposed demolition of Queen Street Bridge. Concerns are raised in respect to the impacts of the proposal on sub-surface archaeology and mitigation as well and the harm arising from the decked car park on the significance and setting of multiple designated heritage assets within the application site.
Planning Casework Unit (PCU)
3.72 No comments to make on the environmental statement.
Network Rail
3.73 No comments received.
Environment Agency
3.74 No objections however the Environmental Statement does not address groundwater and contamination as these have been scoped out of the EIA. These are not considered as topics in within the CEMP and we request that the final CEMP is updated to include these.
Yorkshire Water
3.75 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (report dated 28 November 2018) is acceptable. On the Statutory Sewer Map there are a number of significant public sewers recorded to cross the site and it is essential that the presence of this infrastructure is taken into account in the design of the scheme. It would appear that the majority of the public sewers are unlikely to be affected by building-over proposals. The developer may need to pay for movement of meters to the railway site and consider how deep the private supply from the meters to buildings on the site will be at this point and access requirements.
Designing out Crime
3.76 Comments from North Yorkshire Designing out Crime officer is in collaboration with the British Transport Police (BTP) and regional Counter Terrorism Security Advisor (CTSA). The crime issues at this location include violence and theft, with antisocial behaviour a major problem.
3.77 Keys areas of concern in the proposals include:
- minimising the risk of bottlenecks and anti-social behaviour
- seating should be kept to a minimum or at least carefully positioned and not allow items to be placed beneath it and to not allow full stretching out, so as not to attract rough sleepers and beggars, and move this issue closer to the station
- key areas such as the taxi rank and MSCP should be covered with adequate CCTV; these are hotspot areas for assaults and verbal arguments.
- careful consideration for tree planting as they can block certain views on CCYTV systems
- accessibility in emergencies for BTP emergency response vehicles; their relocation is logical but there needs to be a clear driving route and have the ability to leave at speed. Tea Room Square will still be used for deliveries and could be heavily pedestriansed
- the taxi rank could become a bottleneck at peak times with queues forming whilst still providing having to provide a through route for access to/from the short and long stay parking
- currently the taxi rank is a franchise system run by LNER; there will need to be adequate signage to warn taxi drivers from different companies as to their rights in this area
- the tram shelter has been the focus of rough sleepers for a long time. It is noted that it is to be retained; consideration should be given to its removal or conversion to a retail use so that is does not continue to be misused
3.78 Measures to counter the threat from terrorism have been discussed during pre-application stage, however the recommendations from this process are not for public dissemination, but the LPA must take them into account when considering the design of the station frontage. It is recommended that a pre-commencement condition secures counter terrorism security measures into the development.
Conservation Area Advisory Panel (CAAP)
3.79 Generally disappointed for the proposals relating to Parcel Square and that there is no coherent policy for the whole station as well as the lack of any joined up thinking between these proposals and those being considered by Network Rail/LNER for the station itself. There are several references to a new Conservation Development 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.
3.80 The Panel welcomed the removal of Queen Street Bridge but would like to see proposed design of new bus shelters and indication on paving of the former railway structures and layout. The MSCP was too high generally although the proposal is accepted. The long term viability of a car park of this capacity was questioned in light of apparent aspirations for the York Central site. The Parcel Square doesn’t appear to be a major entrance into the station and is one of a store room and small/inadequate exit corridor. The panel were not convinced by the proposed use of vitreous cladding panels
York Civic Trust
3.81 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:
- Parcel Square
3.82 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. 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.
- Transport
3.83 Pedestrian and cycle routes are not evident in the proposal (from Lowther Terrace to Tea room Square).
Buses; no commitment to route all park and ride services and all other city-centre bus services via the station to provide an effective interchange for all public transport. Need an undercover central information point and clear signage to benefit a city transport hub.
Taxis; revisions make much better provision for taxi pick up, but it is not clear where the taxis drop off passengers and this should have direct undercover access to the station and ensuring that it does not disrupt other traffic movements.
Servicing of retail units is unclear; should be limited to times when it causes least disruption
Car users; the proposal is lacking justification for such a high level of parking provision at the station; York Central will provide an additional 800 spaces (making a total of 1,300 spaces for the station). Such provision is at odds with the Council’s policies on sustainable transport.
3.84 The Trust’s earlier concerns in respect to materials, design and massing for the proposed long-stay car park and taxi rank provision have been appeased. The Trust deeply regrets the submission of such a far reaching application as this whilst not first holding sufficient consultation with key interest groups namely the Train Operating Company (TOC) and the Railway Heritage Trust and the insufficient attempt to integrate recent, related transport improvements such as Scarborough Bridge and York Central.
3.85 Addendum comments have been received citing that the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) will be assessing all Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) against its strategy for achieving net carbon by 2038 (Tackling the Climate Emergency: Emission Reductions Pathways Report; WYCA, July 2020). At present the proposals help provide anticipated growth in rail use and stimulate growth in walking, cycling and bus use but nothing directly to reduce car use. Network Rail require like-for-like replacement of long stay car parking appears to relate to revenue requirements. We recommend that planning permission for the MSCP be deferred pending review of implications and alternatives (such as extending park and ride services).
Railway Heritage Trust
3.86 No response received.
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 The application has been widely publicised by letter, site notice and local press notice. There have been two rounds of publicity. Any representations that have been made at either stage are summarised below.
4.2 A number of local campaign bodies have submitted representations:
York Cycle Campaign
4.3 Original objections cited lack of physical separation and over-reliance on painted lanes and shared pedestrian/cycle paths in front of station. These have now been addressed; there is a greater amount of physical segregation across the proposal from traffic and pedestrians and we now support the proposals.
4.4 Comments also make reference to the technical development of the cycle infrastructure informed by the new DfT Local Transport Note for Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 01/20).
4.5 Concerns are raised to the following aspects of the scheme:
- surfacing of segregated cycleway with stone-setts can be dangerous and recommend that asphalt is used.
- confirmation that current levels of cycle parking provision is maintained through the phases including type of cycle parking and an increase in cycle parking provision should be sought; there should be a balance mix of two-tier racks and Sheffield stands to provide greatest accessibility and usability by all cycle types. Should include cargo bike parking.
- access to and from the station be improved (particularly between the station and Scarborough Bridge). The application should provide an off-road cycleway would double cycle level usage which would be in line with the NPPF.
York Environment Forum
4.6 The York Environment Forum set out that the application fails to meet the strategic transport needs of the City to achieve modal shift to public transport. The priority given to taxis, cars and car parking over bus provision is contrary to the Council’s transport hierarchy in the Local Transport Plan (LTP). The scheme appears to have been developed in isolation from the York Central proposals, Local Plans and Local Transport Plan and fails to develop a proper bus rail interchange.
4.7 These proposals involve a major worsening of public transport facilities: bus stops are being located down the road away from the station and the benefit of covered eastbound stops integral with the station is lost. Limited set of additional bus stop capacity is being added, when current number of stops is already inadequate at busier times. A comprehensive interchange is needed so services currently terminating elsewhere in the city centre can terminate here with minimum turn round delays. This would begin to deliver the sort of integrated high quality public transport. There are no other development opportunities at the other four strategic interchange points within the city centre due to local street constraints. The portico should be used as a meet and greet area for people arriving by train with onward signing to the bus interchange and stops.
4.8 The application has not adequately addressed potentially conflicting pedestrian, cycle, road and vehicle conflicts along the front of the station.
4.9 We welcome the principle of relocating the taxi rank, especially removing the tea room square exit arrangement although taxi services should not be given the absolute degree of priority over buses.
York Bus Forum
4.10 Broadly in support of the scheme and we are unconditionally in favour of demolition of Queen Street Bridge. Concerns are raised that the scheme has implications for longer-term development towards a bigger, better bus interchange. The scheme gives bus facilities and passengers too low a priority at a time when there is a clear need for better public transport in York.
4.11 Main areas of concern are:
a. The proposed pedestrian crossing outside the Portico has disadvantages and threatens to close off or compromise too many options for future development
b. The relative disposition of the taxi rank, drop-off and northbound bus lanes threatens to close off or compromise option for future development
c. The MSCP to compensate for loss of LNER’s long stay parking revenues violates every principle of prioritising public transport and de-congesting the road network.
4.12 A number of individual businesses/ stakeholders who are located within or outside of the site boundary have submitted representations to the application and are covered below.
LNER (London North Eastern Railway)
4.13 LNER are the Station Facility Owner responsible for the safe and efficient operation of York Station provided comments to the initial proposal citing the following concerns:
- drawings that are submitted are ‘outline’ in nature and contain little substantive information (dimensions, specific fabric and material references and specifications etc)
- insufficient sharing of information, detail and timings to allow meaningful stakeholder consultation; the programming and phasing need to recognise the restrictions imposed by ensuring customer and staff safety, operational efficiency and public perception and understanding
- the scheme delivers minimal benefit to the station or the wider rail network but instead delivers direct benefits for the highway in and around the station
- lack of consideration of the regulated steps and processes for railway investment
- there must be no reduction in any facilities or utilities at the station and is a concern that there is no legal agreement to facilitate this. The facilities affected include, but are not limited to:
- customer facilities such as car parking, cycle parking, a covered taxi provision
- rail staff car parking
- station operational facilities such as offices, messrooms, locker rooms, stores
- station tenant facilities such as store and delivery provisions
- elements of the application may not be progressed due to a lack of funding; these underfunded elements are intrinsic to the scheme as they are required to replace the facilities at the station proposed to be removed and presents a potential risk to the scheme.
- it is unclear how this scheme fits with any wider scheme for the station including LNER’s funded scheme (ref: 18/00005/LBC).
York Railway Institute (Chairman of Trustees of the York RI Charity)
4.14 York RI supports the objectives of the scheme and appreciates the improvements that will result assuming the Masterplan is fully implemented. However once the scheme is completed there will be significantly increased traffic flow that will create problems with the operation of the Sports Centre and the scheme does not offer direct benefit to the York RI. Its implementation will create severe disruption to the business to the extent of threating future development plans but the continuing operation of both York RI Queen Street and the wider York RI charity. The increased noise levels, traffic flow and ongoing disruption to access including road closures will deter both current and potential users of our facility, potential affecting revenues.
4.15 The York RI band room is home to three brass bands and the Charity will not agree to relocate from the band room until we have a suitable alternative which can be occupied without incurring additional costs; a proposal is currently with Network Rail and the Council.
4.16 Maintaining access to parking throughout the works is an issue; we have designated parking within our lease and agreement for twilight parking in the short stay car park; there is a need to maintain parking levels through the phasing and implementation and upon completion of the scheme.
4.17 The Charity anticipate daily involvement at some stage of the work and as we are reliant on volunteers, this is likely to incur additional costs and we have asked for assurances that any fees and costs incurred will be fully reimbursed.
4.18 The main RI building is used as living accommodation for the site manager. Other practical issues are outstanding such as Fire Risk Assessments and details of building reinstatement.
Cycle Heaven
4.19 The managing director of Cycle Heaven supports the principle of the scheme as it offers a significant and long overdue improvements in the public realm, however they do raise strong concerns in regrds to the detail of the scheme including:
4.20 Future viability of Cycle Heaven at the Station;
- details regarding an alternative location at the station were vague and imprecise
- existing premises fronts onto the outside of the station with all the advantages such visibility entails, and resultant loss of forecourt and access to a two tier cycle rack for storage and display
- no approach to discuss commercial terms and compensation for costs being occurred
- issues in respect to the proposed new location within the south trainshed; it’s within a quiet area, no provision of access, heating, ventilation, running water, WC and waste disposal
- issues surrounding lack of funding to complete the project
4.21 Cycle Infrastructure
- the provision of segregated cycle lane that was originally intended along Queen Street has been removed following pressure from a small number of residents, which is a retrograde step and people will not embrace cycling as a form of everyday transport if there are no facilities that segregates them from other vehicular traffic.
- no indication of cycle parking within the station despite new structures proposed in the current locations of existing cycle parking
4.22 Visual/aesthetic impact of the works
- materials proposed for Parcel Square is inappropriate to the site
- storage and retail pods –suggest an approach that will not camouflage or disguise the building’s finer features.
Royal Mail
4.23 Concerns that no information is provided as to the longer term effects on the highway form road closures and redirected traffic as a result of the proposal and the adjacent York Central scheme. The development will have an impact upon the ability of Royal Mail to operate effectively from their existing York Central Delivery Office.
Unipart
4.24 Our relocation is based on a facility provided at Northminster Business Park and planning permission has not yet been granted. This will mean that skilled jobs will be retained in the city (40-60 currently employed) if the above isn’t secured, jobs will be relocated to Crewe. The new facility at Northminster Business Park needs to be constructed and fitted out before the current facility at Leeman Road can be closed. (NB. Officers advise that the application referred to above Ref: 18/02158/FULM was granted approval on 31 May 2019).
Neighbour Notification and Publicity
4.25 The application has been advertised by site and press notice and neighbour notification, and this has been done on two separate occasions. In total 34 letters of representation have been received and can be summarised as follows:
Highways
- conflict between priority of users and how they will use the infrastructure; pedestrians, cyclists, emergency vehicles, buses, all of which will be brought too close to the station building
- changes are needed; the current arrangement is poor for pedestrians, cyclists, taxis and buses
- altering the station to support active travel links to public transport should be our priority
- question necessity of short-term car parking and drop off spaces so near to the station (other than specifically for disable people). Few travel with large items of luggage and there are alternative informal areas for drop off and pick up
- welcome the absence of a bus station which would delay through routes and appearance of the listed station
- the usage of short stay car park will result in congestion and delays to terminating buses
- short stay car park should be located to the ground floor of the MSCP and short stay car park for landscaping and longer taxi queues
- unlikely that the proposals on their own will reduce traffic and improve air quality outside the Station
- suggest a 20mph speed restriction is required past the station
- suggest the addition of a dedicated cycle route from Scarborough Bridge through North Train Shed and Tea Room Square; cyclists can then avoid having to use Lendal Gyratory
Multi storey car park
- impact on both middle and distance views; block view to station
- if it didn’t have a roof it wouldn’t be such a tall structure and eyesore for local residents
- it is visually intrusive and clash with surrounding historical sensitive area; parking to be provided underground as surface car parks are a mis-use of valuable land space
- cause unnecessary pollution issues locally
- consider moving the car park capacity elsewhere and assess the need for additional capacity
Landscaping/Public realm
- absence of tree planting – the vision is bleak and despite the implied use of prestige surfaces and paving its more likely to be dominated by ‘black top’ asphalt and pressed concrete kerbing and a forest of road signs
- pedestrianisation of Tea Room Square unlikely to be achieved due to its continued use by service vehicles and cyclists
Electric vehicle charging facilities
- lack of adequate electric vehicle charging points for the amount of parking – Council’s guidance is too low and will not meet demand
- should be at least 3 rapid chargers – if only one there is no back up should it break or be in use – lost opportunity to enable electric cars to be viable for taxi drivers
Demolition of RI Band Room
- any alternative band room facility will need to provide a parking space/loading bay to support equipment associated with 3 brass bands (medium- large transit van currently used) and should be factored into any decision about any alternative facility. Alternatives that have been presented are not considered suitable; available at a much higher cost and also be subject to congestion and building site and restricted parking. The Brass Bands are an amateur organisation and does not have the financial resources to build a replacement facility; an offer of compensation should be made for loss of earning and alternative provision.
- plenty of space for traffic circulation that could preserve the band room which has historic interest and musical importance in the musical life of the city
- the RI Queen Street site will cease to exist as a social, cultural and sporting centre, impacted by construction impacts, site parking and access
Impact on Queen Street properties
- suggest measures to prevent anti-social behaviour that we currently experience and to mitigate noise, privacy and pollution; soft landscaping/trees at kerbside, railings in front of houses, installation of CCTV, pavement widening of opposite side to encourage pedestrians on bar wall side, payment to cover secondary/triple glazing to mitigate noise (some are listed properties so windows cannot be replaced)
- oppose having tree outside due to the impact on daylight it will have on property
- using existing vehicular access that serves No. 14, 15 and 16 will conflict with cyclists and pedestrians; require hatched area to front to retain vehicular access
- loss of existing parking; alternative and solutions should be provided as this will restrict deliveries and general parking for properties. Micklegate as an alternative is not a workable solution and there is a one-way system in place
- loss of parking devalues houses and there should be independent valuations on the properties; and council tax reduction should be offered
- lack of areas to store wheelie bins
- operational issues and impacts from taking down the Bridge
5.0 APPRAISAL
5.1 Key Issues:
- Principle of Development
- Key Aspects of the Scheme
- Removal of Queen Street Bridge and associated works
- Parcel Square Infill
- Multi storey Car Park (MSCP)
- Works to Railway Institute Gymnasium
- Demolition of Railway Institute Band Room
- Substation and refuse store to serve Railway Station
- Extension to Cholera Burial Ground
- Retention of Tram Shelter
- Wider Public Realm and Highway Works
- Wider Heritage Impacts
- Archaeology
- Landscape
- Ecology
- Air Quality
- Noise and Vibration
- Land Contamination
- Flood Risk and Drainage
- Crime
- Equalities Impact Assessment
- Development Delivery and Phasing
- Conclusion of Harm to Heritage Assets (Public Benefits)
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
5.2 Paragraph 38 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They (LPAs) should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF sets out that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering genuine transport modes. This can help reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health.
5.3 Policy DP2 ‘Sustainable Development’ defines York’s specific aims in meeting the sustainable development agenda as set out in the NPPF. One of the key aims is to ensure efficient and affordable transport links by prioritising and improving strategic public transport, cycle and pedestrian networks as well as conserving, and where appropriate enhancing those elements which contribute to the special character and setting of the historic city.
5.4 The application site is wholly within the city centre boundary as depicted in the City Centre proposals map of the 2018 Draft Plan. Draft policy SS3 (York City Centre) is identified as a priority area for the delivery of economic growth in the tourism, leisure and cultural sectors. This area will remain the focus for town centre uses, unless identified on the proposals map. Policy SS3 states that proposals that promote accessibility and movement are encouraged, particularly those that prioritise the pedestrian and cycle movements. There is particular focus on improving linkages between key places, such as the railway station, York Central and the National Railway Museum, the Minster, Castle Gateway, Hungate and the universities. In particular part xi of the above policy seeks to support the reduction of traffic, improve the public transport offer and the delivery of a bus interchange at York Railway Station.
5.5 The proposed scheme is primarily focused on the reorganisation of existing transport infrastructure around the existing railway station and bus interchange. The key principles of the scheme are to rationalise vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements, improve connectivity and allow for more efficient use of space and improvements to the public realm. There is therefore little change to existing uses within the application site, other than the replacement of retail provision within the railway station that would otherwise be lost through the demolition of Parcel Square. The retail that would be re-provided include the Enterprise office and Cycle Heaven, which are both related to the transport provision at this location. Their provision therefore would not detrimentally impact the vitality and viability of the city centre, or retail within the Primary Shopping Area or the existing facilities within the railway station. The proposed scheme is therefore consistent with the aims of policy SS3 of the 2018 Draft Plan.
5.6 A large proportion of the application site falls also within the site allocation York Central Action Area (DCLP 2005) and ST5 York Central, which is to enable the delivery of a mixed-used urban quarter providing employment, residential, cultural and leisure facilities. The areas of the application site that do not fall within this allocation are those of Queen Street (including RI) and the areas around George Stephenson House. Furthermore, the approved outline York Central Planning Permission (Ref: 18/01884/OUTM) excludes the railway station and surrounding areas including the station car parking and RI gymnasium located to the eastern side of the allocation.
5.7 However, there is one specific area that is included within both this application site and the York Central site and that is the Uni-part building, located to the rear of the railway station with access from Leeman Road. A reserved matters application (Ref: 20/00710/REMM) relating to the primary vehicle route and associated roads, infrastructure, landscaping and alterations to the existing road network as part of the York Central development has been approved. Under both proposals, this building will be demolished; however the current scheme seeks to lay a concrete foundation and use this area as a temporary car park, to allow for displaced parking during the construction of the multi-storey car park.
KEY ASPECTS OF THE SCHEME
5.8 Members are reminded that the statutory duties in relation to listed buildings and conservation areas are explained in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 above. Additional central government policy on heritage assets contained in Section 16 of the NPPF is set out in paragraphs 2.7 above.
Removal of Queen Street Bridge and associated works
5.9 At the heart of the overall scheme lies the proposed demolition of the Queen Street Bridge. The Bridge itself was constructed in 1877-78 to carry traffic over the railway tracks that ran through the arches in the City Wall to the Old Station. The Bridge was designed to serve workshops and houses, resulting in cutting into the rampart further than what would have been necessary and minimising the height of the bridge so not to impeded horse-drawn traffic due to a significant gradient. The first modification to the bridge was in 1910-11 when it was widened and adapted for trams, employing reinforced concrete construction. There is evidence that the reinforced concrete techniques did not age well, and it was at this point (1946) where proposals to demolish the bridge were first proposed, with a low level road in its place. However it was considered that it was cheaper to strengthen and repair the Bridge.
5.10 The YCHCCA character area 22 (Railway Area) Appraisal identifies the bridge as a weakness to the area noting that it is now obsolete and detrimental to the setting of the City walls and nearby Listed Buildings. The bridge is not built for the amount of traffic that now regularly use it. Whilst the bridge could be taken as an illustration of the history of York’s railway history, pointing to the two arches in the city walls and their former purposes, perception of the historical significance has dwindled over time and it is now seen negatively. An assessment of the significance of the Queen Street Bridge identified that it can be attributed limited historical and evidential value along with its negative aesthetic value. Overall it is considered to be of negligible significance. No objections are raised from heritage consultees (the Council’s Conservation Architect and Historic England) to the principle of the demolition of the Bridge, noting that it presents an opportunity to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting, as well as better revealing the significance of various heritage assets (notably the City Walls, Railway Station, No’s 17-20 Queen Street and the Water Tower and Workshop).
5.11 The demolition of Queen Street Bridge will allow for the regrading of the highway on Queen Street, and bring the highway closer to the properties on Queen Street and the Railway Institute, This will remove the existing slip road and parking area that serves these properties and the RI. As you continue along the highway round the bend of Tofts Tower to Station road, the loss of the bridge will open up this area, to allow for improved bus/taxi/railway interchange. This section focuses upon the area to the front of Queen Street properties, the York RI building and potential impact to Tofts Tower and the City Walls.
5.12 There will be no change to the single carriageway arrangement for vehicles. Principal changes to highway infrastructure will be to cycle accessibility with a 2m one-way segregated cycle way that continues through the site on the east side of Queen Street, and partially segregated cycleway on the west side, both linking to the wider cycle routes within the wider site and beyond.
5.13 Currently there is a slip road in front of the properties on Queen Street leading to the RI area and NCP car park. 8no. on-street car parking spaces that are part of the Council’s Residents Parking are located on this slip road; this zone (R15SC) extends to Micklegate. These parking spaces will be removed, and the area will be subsumed into public highway, providing footpath, cycle way and the carriageway. 2no. on street parking spaces will be maintained (identified as taxi drop off) to allow for residents short term parking and drop-off.
5.14 It is acknowledged that the outlook from the terrace properties would be different for the occupiers; currently the carriageway due to the bridge is partly raised and segregated from traffic using Queen Street. The works would bring traffic closer to these properties. The occupiers of these properties have requested additional mechanisms to address concerns of anti-social behaviour, noise, pollution and general amenity considerations, including tree planting, railings, pavement widening, installation of CCTV, and contribution to cover costs of installing secondary/triple glazing.
5.15 There is an existing vehicle crossing at 14 Queen Street which leads to an archway providing vehicular access to the rear of No’s 14, 15 and 16 Queen Street where a large rear yard has been created where it is used by small vans and cars. It is noted that this rear yard also extends to include No. 13, although the owners/occupiers of this property do not have the right to park within this area and must enable access across their land. The proposals seek to retain this vehicle crossing and access through the archway at No. 14 Queen Street. Initially, this arrangement was objected to by the Highway Network Management, citing regular conflict movements between cyclists, pedestrians, vehicles on Queen Street (including frequent bus services), and vehicles accessing this off-street parking through the archway. The occupier of No. 14 Queen Street has cited that they use a transit van and reverse out of the archway; there is not enough room to easily turn such a vehicle around within the courtyard. This vehicular crossing will be directly on a classified road with high volumes of traffic, across a busy footway and cycleway.
5.16 The applicant has assessed a number of alternative access options, including removing the existing vehicular access (option 1), providing alternative access to the rear of the properties (option 2) and retaining access through the existing archway whilst providing measures to maximise the visibility of pedestrian and cycle lane users (option 3). The delivery of Options 2 (and 2A) would involve access through private land and legal agreements with third parties. The applicant considers that option 3 is the preferred option that would maintain the safe operation of the highway for all highway users.
5.17 In terms of the preferred option (Option 3), a swept path analysis has been undertaken demonstrating that a small car can access the archway from the highway in a forward direction and turn around, allowing egress in a forward manner to the highway. There remains space for a limited number of vehicles to be parked in this area at the same time, although this will restrict the ease of this vehicle movement. The above is based on a very limited number of vehicle movements using the access point during a single day; the access serves only three properties and assuming a single vehicle per property this equates to a maximum of 6-12 one-way movements per day. It has also been demonstrated by the applicant that this manoeuvre is also possible by a 3.5T panel van; although it is a relatively restricted and tight manoeuvre. There is no need for vehicles to reverse onto the footway and public highway from the archway, however it noted that this cannot be prevented by the physical measures imposed and it would be difficult to enforce a ban on vehicles undertaking this manoeuvre, such as through a TRO.
5.18 In order to maximise visibility for vehicles egressing the archway, railings (measuring 1.1m high) off-set 1.5m approx. from the building face are proposed locally on either site of the access point. This arrangement would also require the existing gate to be replaced with an electronic controlled gate, meaning users don’t have to get out of their vehicles.
5.19 The Highways Development Officer has considered the options presented in the Technical Note, and whilst none of the options provide a full solution, they acknowledge that the preferred design (option 3) will improve visibility and offers options to address remaining safety issues. This can be achieved by a full road safety audit being undertaken, with specific reference to the private vehicular access to these properties on Queen Street, but also in considering the scheme as a whole. This can be secured via suitably worded condition.
5.20 The proposed installation of railings satisfies a number of amenity concerns from occupiers along Queen Street particularly those at No’s 11-16 Queen Street that have recessed doorways, and suggested railings to deter anti-social behaviour from the increase in pedestrians using the footpath to access the Station, particularly on race days. It is not considered that other mechanisms such as the installation of CCTV would be suitable deterrent as this is a reactive system and there could be issues of privacy given their intention to survey residential properties and the ability to capture high quality images that can be used in prosecutions.
5.21 The railings would however extend across the full length of the properties on Queen Street from No. 11 to the edge of the Railway Institute. The design of the railings has been taken from the design of the Juliet balcony proposed to the first floor of the Railway Institute building, following the removal of the footbridge. No’s 17-20 Queen Street are a group of four terraced houses built in around 1835, pre-dating the railway but have been associated with the railway for most of their history. They appear to retain original features meaning they hold considerable aesthetic value and as remnants of early c19 expansion and transformation into Queen Street they hold some evidential and historical value. These heritage assets are grade II listed and have high significance overall.
5.22 The issue of the railings in front of these properties, relates to their setting, and how they area experienced. Due to the Queen Street Bridge which is adjacent the row of terraces, the current way of experiencing the heritage assets is primarily from an elevated position. They are experienced to some degree from the public footpath to the front of them, but given that pedestrian access is to the RI area, rather than the station it doesn’t result in heavy footfall. The removal of the bridge will result in the highways infrastructure being reduced to grade level, and these properties being adjacent to the main carriageway, rather than offset. There will be an impact upon the visual qualities of these terrace cottages with the railings positioned directly in front of them, however any obscuring of the features will be fleeting, given the railings design. The addition of the railings to the front of the properties on Queen Street are considered to result in a neutral impact to the significance of the heritage assets and their setting.
5.23 It has been noted by residents of Queen Street, as well as the Council’s Landscape Architect that this arrangement of the highway presents an opportunity for tree planting, and offer some segregation between the properties and highways infrastructure. This has been investigated by the applicant’s however at this stage it appears that there is a significant amount of utility infrastructure (water, gas and fibre) diverted to this area that tree routes could damage. Additionally, with the railings positioned 1m from these properties, the footpath becomes much narrower and pinch points would be created in a scheme that prioritises pedestrian routes. At this stage, the landscaping plan is indicative, with a final scheme secured via condition, and if a solution is found where trees can be accommodated, this will be encouraged. It is noted however that the provision of trees is not unanimous across all occupiers, with some citing that there is a concern that trees would restrict daylight and outlook. If trees could be accommodated, their species and position would have to be carefully considered.
- Works to 22 Queen Street (Railway Institute)
5.24 There is currently a steel footbridge from the first floor entrance of no. 22 Queen Street (Railway Institute building) leading to Queen Street bridge, which will be removed as part of the proposals. A Juliet balcony using refurbished cast iron railings from the bridge would be erected in front of this doorway and the brickwork of the building repaired and made good.
5.25 The building has provided for the sporting and educational welfare of railway staff and is identified as providing great communal and historical significance, with medium significance overall. Its connection with the railway, and the present York railway station means that it forms an important part of its setting.
5.26 This building is not listed and it is noted that the City of York Council does not have an adopted local list. This building however is identified in the YCHCCA character area 22 (railway area) appraisal as a building of merit. Additionally, the building is locally valued and is identified on the York Open Planning Forum. The forum states that a Local List is a community created register of buildings and structures that are of importance and interest to local communities because of their historic or architectural interest. It is therefore considered that given the advice provided in the Planning Practice Guidance, this building can be identified as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).
5.27 The combination of the removal of the bridge (including footbridge) and the introduction of the Juliet balcony to the front façade of 22 Queen Street is considered to make a positive contribution to the visual appearance of the building and its appreciation in the wider setting to York railway station. These works would directly affect the heritage asset, in terms of aesthetic significance and therefore the scale of harm to the identified communal and historical significances of this NDHA is considered to be low, having regard to paragraph 197 of the NPPF . These works will enable the RI building to continue to provide the social and recreational activities, associations and clubs that are currently provided, which were originally for railway employees and now available to the general public, further enhancing the significance of this NDHA. The relationship of the building with Queen Street will be vastly improved in terms of its accessibility to the benefit of existing users, further enhancing the setting with the railway station and better revealing the character and appearance of the conservation area.
- Relationship to Toft’s Tower/City Walls
5.28 The southern approach ramp of the Queen Street Bridge runs close to the City Wall in the vicinity of Tofts Tower. York City Walls are designated scheduled ancient monument and Grade I listed building and were generally constructed C12-C14. Tofts Tower was destroyed and reconstructed C1645. The City Wall is a largely intact medieval structure, built upon much older remains. It has been modified, and the two railway arches were constructed through the wall in 1839 and 1846 to allow the railway lines through the wall. It possesses considerable aesthetic, evidential, historical and communal value. It is considered to be a heritage asset of very high significance.
5.29 The proposed scheme has the potential to affect the City Walls through a number of ways, including the removal of the Queen Street Bridge, the assessment, repair and reuse of the original 1840s retaining wall and bridge buttress found within the southern approach ramp of the bridge and the reinstatement of the rampart.
5.30 Archaeological investigations at Tofts Tower (Tower 13) were undertaken in 2019 to record the foundations of the tower and adjacent city walls which has provided further information on the rebuilding of the tower and depth of foundation. Monitoring work has been taken place to provide baseline date on the general levels of movement of the wall and rampart. Monitoring will continue during the proposed works, however it is considered that the stability of the ramparts should not be affected by the works.
2.31 There has been substantial pre-application discussions between the applicants and Historic England, with the level of understanding of the proposed works in regard to the city walls, Toft Tower, rampart and the Victorian retaining walls is acceptable to Historic England.
5.32 The council’s Archaeologist highlights specific areas of concern, particularly in regards to the demolition of Queen Street Bridge, the construction of the new highway and works to the ramparts and retaining walls to part of the City Walls, stating that these have the potential to disturb isolated pockets of surviving Roman material, medieval, post-medieval and Victorian rampart. Additionally, it is possible that rampart deposits may survive next to the 1840s rampart wall.
5.33 Paragraph 194 (b) of the NPPF includes footnote 63 which states that non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monumentsshould be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. Paragraph 194 b) states that substantial harm to or loss of assets of the highest significance (including scheduled monuments) should be wholly exceptional. Paragraph 193 of the Framework sets out 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; the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification (Para.194).
5.34 The archaeological strategy recommended by the Council’s Archaeologist includes an archaeological watching brief on all groundworks, following initial demolition, installation of services and construction and a further archaeological excavation required in areas where significant archaeological despots survive which are unable to be preserved in situ.
5.35 Whilst the significance of the archaeological interests is high, it is concluded that the scale of harm to the significance on archaeological features and deposits is considered to result in less than substantial harm, and the impacts could be mitigated through the use of planning conditions requiring archaeological watching brief and excavation.
5.36 Historic England have suggested public realm improvements to the retaining wall to the reinstated rampart such as street or public art. This is not currently part of the proposals, but could be developed further as the scheme progresses. The proposals incorporate significant public realm improvements across the site.
Parcel Square infill
5.37 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 Train Operating Company (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 Trans Pennine Express (TPE) staff accommodation. Further along the southern train shed are numerous cycle parking areas.
5.38 For the purposes of this report the Parcel Square area relates to the Cycle Heaven and combined accommodation including back of house areas, which extend to the south shed concourse.
5.39 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.
5.40 There is general agreement, by the applicant, its Partners and as outlined in the Conservation Development Strategy (2013) (CDS) 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.
5.41 The 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 layout approved under the 18/00005/LBC consent.
5.42 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 platband 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 almost all of the buildings in the York Station frontage site.
5.43 There will be a canopy projecting over the taxi rank area, which is a contemporary butterfly pitched form with glazed panels to the rear to admit light down to the lancet windows.
5.44 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.
5.45 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 as an infill character, deferential to the massing and materials of the adjacent buildings.
5.46 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.
5.47 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. Although it is noted that 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.
5.48 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 platband 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.
5.49 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.
5.50 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.
5.51 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.
5.52 The area 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 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.
5.53 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.
The Multi-Storey Car Park (MSCP)
5.54 The scheme seeks to re-locate the existing level of short stay and long stay parking. Existing short stay car parking will be moved from the north train shed and relocated to an area to the north of the York RI Building and south of the railway station. 34 spaces will be retained at the far end of the northern train shed reserved for sole use of British Transport Police, LNER, TPE and Enterprise car hire.
5.55 The new road layout including the new loop road around the York RI will significantly reduce the parking spaces in the existing long stay surface car park. The approach to provide equivalent long stay car parking is via a 636 space multi-storey car park (MSCP) on the site of the existing surface long stay car park. In addition to the long stay displaced car parking (584 spaces) the MSCP will also provide 5 short stay car parking spaces, 28 spaces for use by Network Rail and 19 spaces for use by the York RI. 5% of the total number of spaces will be DDA compliant, equating to 32 spaces, located on the ground floor.
5.56 There is concern amongst objectors that the capacity of the car park has not been justified, with the future viability of car parking requirements not fully explored in light of York Central aspirations and post-covid working pattern, as well as the Council’s policies on sustainable travel.
5.57 The ability to maintain the existing level of parking provision at the station is a key requirement of the Station’s operator (one of the schemes key partners) and the viability of its franchise. As it re-provides and consolidates the existing parking capacity, the traffic impacts are not considered to be worse than the existing situation. Additionally, the proposals are supported in draft policy T3 (v) of the 2018 Draft Plan which seeks to consolidate public car parks and maintain an appropriate level of long-stay and short-stay parking at York Station.
5.58 Whilst there are close links to the York Central site, the development of car parking provision to serve that development have not to date been forthcoming in the form of reserved matters application, however it is important to note that this application seeks to consolidate the short and long stay car parking arrangements that are currently located to the east of the station, directly serving the station rather than a wider development.
5.59 The wider proposals of the York Station Frontage scheme will continue to promote the Council’s sustainable transport objectives, which include; providing quality alternatives; providing strategic links; implementing behavioural change; tackle transport emissions; and improving the public streets and spaces (Local Transport Plan 3: 2011-2031). It was outlined in the YSF Masterplan that a transport hierarchy would be followed that sought to prioritise pedestrians over other transport modes (cyclists, buses/taxis then private vehicles). The wider development seeks to improve the setting and approaches to the Station for all transport modes whilst also providing appropriate facilities that encourages public transport use. Other measures to reduce car use that have been suggested such as extending park and ride services and all bus services to the Station are beyond the scope of this application.
5.60 Concerns surrounding the wider and future impacts arising from the coronavirus (COVID-19) are noted, and it is acknowledged that the pandemic has brought many changes as to how we live and work, although the long term impacts are unknown. Plans remain in place for longer terms projects to York Station (Transpennine Rail Upgrade, HS2 and Northern Powerhouse). It is anticipated that the railway station will see increased passenger numbers in the future. Maintaining the existing quantum of car parking at the station meets an existing demand and in planning terms, it is not considered to be necessary to review car parking provision.
- Temporary car parking provision
5.61 During construction of the development there will be some losses of car parking and the applicants have proposed a temporary interim solution; initially this was to be provided on the site of the former Unipart Rail Service Centre Building, subject to the delivery programme for York Central. The applicants have confirmed
the potential of alternative car parks and indeed other areas within the wider York Central site, that could be used to accommodate displaced parking however this will require careful management and dynamic information through VMS (variable message signs) as well as information on station operators and TOC’s website to direct them to alternative car parks.
- Traffic impacts
5.62 The Council’s Highway Network Management officer has advised that the impacts on highway safety and residual cumulative impacts on the road network as a result of the MSCP would be acceptable. It is highlighted that there is a risk that cars could queue on the loop road at peak times and block buses and other traffic using the loop road, however a MSCP that operates as a pay on exit with ANPR (Automatic Number Plate recognition) should reduce the need to queue to get into the MSCP.
-Heritage impacts of MSCP location
5.63 The proposed MSCP would be sited on the site of the existing surface-level car park, which has been identified as a suitable location not just for the space it offers, but as a previous operational part of the station. It was previously occupied by large railway workshops. This area, encompassing the surface-level car park as well as the York RI Gymnasium, the water tower and workshop and RI band room, is termed as the ‘Queen Street Works’. This area represents a collection of buildings with a shared history, and previously a shared architectural character.
5.64 This area developed when the York’s original rail connection opened in 1839, and further developed and intensified in 1844-50 when there was a high level of investment into York’s railway infrastructure and manufacturing. As a result several large railway warehouses several storeys tall to accommodate railway vehicles were constructed. The workshops were all aligned parallel to the main railway lines running through the City Walls.
5.65 In 1905 the works complex closed and building put to various other uses. A joiner’s shop and paint shop survives and has been adapted to form the NCP car park, although this is positioned to the south east and is located outside the Queen Street Works boundary. The York RI opened in 1889 and eventually occupied the York RI Gymnasium and former engineer’s office (now the York RI band room).
5.66 The surface-level car park was previously occupied by the former fitting shop, and is surrounded by the York RI Gymnasium and Water Tower and Workshop, which are considered to have high significance, and the NCP car park building which is of low significance, however they all contribute to the setting and story of the Queen Street Works area. It is noted that views of the southern gables of the York RI Gymnasium and the Water Tower and Workshop are all valuable aspects of the setting.
5.67 Contrastingly, modern blocks overlooking the site from the east including Meridian House, and those at Lowther Terrace and Cambridge Street are significantly taller than nearby terraced houses and detract from the setting of this area. The surface-level car park, subdivided by fences and filled with cars is disorganised and unwelcoming, and fails to connect to its industrial past. The setting of the Queen Street Works is assessed as containing considerable historical and communal value with some evidential value, although to some degree this is harmed by the surface level car park.
5.68 Some buildings within the Queen Street Works are located within the boundary of the York Central Historic Core Conservation Area, having being included when the YCHCCA appraisal was adopted in 2011. The surface-level car park is excluded.
5.69 The initial scheme sought to re-provide parking provision via a two decked car park. This took a faux medieval design approach, and cumulatively with its form and footprint its visual impact was considered harmful to multiple surrounding designated heritage assets.
5.70 The revised proposed MSCP would sit on the footprint of the former railway building identified as the Fitting Shop. With this former building having been aligned with the railway tracks, this will be replicated by the MSCP, reinforcing the character of the area and historical legibility of this area with the city’s railways past. The MSCP takes the form of a simple, regular, function-driven form and seeks to respond to the surrounding buildings that are principally designed with red-brown brick and slate or modern corrugated metal roofing. Other architectural detailing in its design has been taken from surrounding buildings.
5.71 The main body of the car park will feature a pattern of regular bays around the building. Loadbearing brick of dark red-brown would be used for the main body of the car park, providing some texture. It will have a horizontal parapet line. Ventilation openings comprise of rectangular apertures in the brick elevations with tall weathering steel fins as baffles. The lift and stair core, which features the main pedestrian entrance, will protrude from the structure and will be clad in a different material. This material has not yet been determined although darker brick or panels or weathering steel have been suggested.
5.72 Both the Council’s conservation architect and Historic England are in general agreement with the revised design for the MSCP. Its vertical emphasis works well and rhythmic bay pattern is simple reflecting the functional Victorian buildings that survive and those that once occupied the site. Additionally, materials palette is appropriate for this location. There remains concern in respect to detailing at the wall openings and parapet and the treatment of the lift and stair core, however these can be dealt with via conditions.
5.73 The MSCP is sited behind and as close to the rear York RI Gymnasium building, while allowing for road, cycleway and pedestrian footway between the two. The MSCP has also been designed with a notch in the corner to allow views through to the grade II listed Water Tower and Workshop from Lowther Terrace. The main vehicular and pedestrian access/egress is via the north east elevation facing the Water Tower and York RI Gymnasium and aims to improve the historic setting of this part of the Queen Street Works.
5.74 The MSCP generally follows the configuration of the existing car park up to the point where it significantly narrows, in the western corner. The building will measure 94m x 42m (approx.) with the height to the parapet 12m (approx.) and the lift core raising to 14m (approx.). It comprises of ground, first, second and third floor levels, however internally the floors will be split (ramped) giving a total of 8 levels.
5.75 It is acknowledged that the MSCP is a large building, although comparable to other buildings in the area, will have an impact on several important views, these are identified as ‘from the railway’, ‘from the station platforms’ and ‘from the city wall’.
5.76 There is currently a void in the townscape when approaching the railway station from the south. The large brick functional building will result in visible mass, however this will reinforce a strong aspect of the historic character of this area. Additionally, the building has been designed with a stepped arrangement on the westernmost corner to mitigate the building’s impact, particularly when trains are passing and introducing shadows.
5.77 Views from the southern tips of the railway station platforms will be affected; the MSCP occupies a section which is currently relatively open. The cornice line of the MSCP will be particularly prominent in views, and will require significant emphasis on quality. On the other side of the tracks in the Network Rail’s Rail Operation Centre (ROC). The two buildings are of similar scale and it is intended that they operate together as ‘gateway’ buildings, referencing the previous large railway buildings that this part of York contained since the 1840s.
5.78 From the City Wall, the MSCP will be mostly hidden behind the York RI Gymnasium; it will still register in views, although its visual impact is reduced and would not be harmful.
5.79 It is considered that the proposed design and location of the proposed MSCP and the surrounding buildings allow the building to fit into its context. The MSCP has been sensitively handled, particularly in views when approaching from the south. It is not considered that the MSCP would result in significant harm to the setting of neighbouring heritage assets notably, listed buildings (the railway station), the York RI buildings, the city walls and the conservation area. The significance of the Queen Street Works area would be enhanced through the alignment with the original (and lost) track layout.
5.80 Objections have been received citing that the MSCP will be visually dominant, even if constructed in similar materials to nearby structures, it is too high and would be an eye sore for local residents as well as impacting on middle and long distance views. One commentator has also identified that to avoid clashing with the surrounding historically sensitive area, parking should be provided underground; surface car parks are a miss-use of valuable land space and cost should not be a reason for dismissing it. The site lies within an Area of Archaeological Importance and there is potential for well-preserved deposits to exist in the location of the surface car park. In addition, there would be engineering and structural issues to consider as well as understanding the cumulative impact with the demolition of Queen Street Bridge. This would be a significant undertaking, and given the restricted constraints of the size of the retained surface level car park, any underground car park would need to be considered along with an above-ground aspect. This alternative is beyond the scope of this application, and it is likely to be financially unviable.
5.81 The NCP car park which is housed in the former joiner’s workshop and paint shop is situated to the south east of the existing surface long-stay car park. This extends up to the boundary with Lowther Terrace and its corrugated profiled roof can be seen above the high boundary wall. There is a ramped cycle and pedestrian access from Lowther Terrace down to the surface car park; the MSCP would follow the building line of Lowther Terrace that veers to the west and be visible above the existing boundary wall. Accessed from Lowther Terrace and adjacent to the Queen Street Works area is a number of medium-to high rise residential buildings, Oxford House and The Walk. Concerns have been raised that the MSCP will obstruct views from these residential buildings, over the car park to the Station and beyond. Views to the Station or the City Walls from street level on Lowther Terrace are impacted by the high boundary wall and then are further impacted by the position of the York RI Gymnasium building. Any views are likely to be as a result of the height of the residential flats contained within these residential buildings. The impact of proposed buildings on private views is not a material planning consideration and little weight is attributed to this in the assessment of the application.
- Crime
5.82 The existing car park is an open and exposed site, which contributes to low car crime levels. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has advised that the car park should be adequately covered by CCTV, which can be secured by condition.
- Electric Vehicle Charging Points
5.83 Paragraph 110e) of the Framework states that development should be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra- low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient location. The energy statement sets out a commitment to provide electric vehicle charging points at a level of 5% active provision; equating to 32 spaces, distributed between the disabled and standard parking bays. The Council’s Low Emission Strategy (2012) which has been updated during the consideration of the application now seeks additional requirement of providing 5% of the total number of spaces to be passive provision as well as the addition of a rapid charger installation. Passive provision is defined as sufficient capacity within the electricity distribution board to allow the future addition of electric vehicle recharging points (EVRP).
5.84 Whilst the plans have not identified the locations of the individual EVRP, there is a commitment from the applicants to provide adequate provision, in line with the Council’s requirements, however these details can be secured by a suitable planning condition.
5.85 It is noted that objections have been received citing that the Council guidance in respect to EV charging and particularly rapid chargers is too low and will not meet demand. Additionally, the Council’s public protection team have highlighted that other MSCP proposed within the city provide an increase in EV charging facilities above policy requirements and identify the Council car park at St George’s Field providing a 15% active provision. Whilst these concerns are noted, the current provision would achieve the Council’s standards in this respect and it would be unreasonable to request that the provision of EV charging facilities exceed this; however there are opportunities within other areas of the site to provide EV charging facilities if demand for plug in and low emission vehicles significantly increase.
- Sustainability
5.86 Policy CC1 (Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation and Storage) of the 2018 Draft Plan requires all new buildings to achieve a reasonable reduction in carbon emissions of at least 28% unless it can be demonstrated that this is not viable. The 28% reduction relates to reduction through renewable energy sources but it can also be achieved through a combined package including energy efficiency as set out in Policy CC2 (Sustainable Design and Construction). This is particularly relevant with a building such as a MSCP which, due to its very nature, presents difficulties in providing energy efficiency measures.
5.87 Policy CC2 sets out that BREEAM Excellent (or equivalent) should be achieved. The energy statement supporting the MSCP sets out that BREEAM is not considered appropriate for the MSCP due to the high proportion of unoccupied spaces and an alternative method of assessment; CEEQUAL has been put forward. CEEQUAL is an evidenced-based sustainability assessment rating and awards scheme for civil engineering, infrastructure, landscaping and public realm projects. This method assesses what and how something is built, rather than the environmental or social need for a project. Officers are satisfied that the CEEQUAL assessment is an acceptable alternative and falls under the “or equivalent” part of Policy CC2.
5.88 It is acknowledged that BREEAM and CEEQUAL are two different assessment schemes and the scoring systems cannot be compared. The Council’s policy team consider that as for BREEAM, ‘excellent’ should be sought for in the CEEQUAL assessment, which would be in line in the aims of the policies set out in the Local Plan to be ambitious in their requirements for new developments to reflect the national commitment to reducing carbon emissions and the Council’s ambition to tackle climate change.
5.89 CEEQUAL’s methodology assess the extent to which the project has exceeded statutory and regulatory standards. ‘Very good’ is a score of 60%, excellent is a score of 75%. The submitted CEEQUAL pre-assessment report concludes that a CEEQUAL ‘Very Good’ rating, with a score of 64% is currently anticipated. The pre-assessment report also identifies several opportunities in the later design stages to increase the score to an ‘Excellent’ rating, however as currently presented, a very good standard represents advanced good practice. The different levels of Awards should not be seen as inferior to each other when comparing, they are both beyond the legal minimum of environmental and social performance in the industry.
5.90 In addition to the CEEQUAL pre-assessment, the submitted energy statement demonstrates energy and carbon dioxide savings in accordance with the energy hierarchy and water efficiency. This details that a passive design will assist in reducing energy use through natural ventilation, building fabric performance, thermal mass and daylighting strategy. In terms of energy efficiencies, the statement set out that the stairwell and lift lobby roof areas could be mounted with photovoltaics (PV) cells. An assessment has been made of the potential visual impact, concluding that the visual impact arising from the possible installation of PV cells on the roof areas, given the parapet detailing of the MSCP would be minimal. These measures are in addition to the provision of electrical vehicle charging points.
5.91 In view of the above considerations, Officers consider that the MSCP is complaint with Policies CC1 and CC2 of the 2018 Draft Plan. A condition is recommended to ensure that the MSCP is constructed to a CEEQUAL standard of at least ‘Very Good’, which would be consistent with the requirements of other MSCP proposed in the City and taking into account the moderate weight given to the 2018 draft Plan policies.
Works to Railway Institute Gymnasium
5.92 The RI gymnasium building occupies a prominent position on the site, although its presence is compromised by the presence of Queen Street Bridge. The new loop road will extend around the building, providing access to the MSCP, which will be situated behind. This part of the site is restricted given the access and capacity requirements of the loop road and MSCP. As well as replacing parking capacity to equivalent levels of the existing long stay surface car park, the scheme seeks to provide other car parking spaces for the use of the RI; they currently have 30 parking spaces in numerous and ad-hoc locations throughout the RI estate. Additional space has been identified to the rear of the RI gymnasium building, where access would be directly from the loop road. There are a number of single storey rear (non-original) extensions to the RI gymnasium building, which contain a store, boiler room and entrance which are proposed to be demolished. In their place will be 11 car parking spaces for the sole use of the RI.
5.93 The gymnasium building was formerly the erecting shed and its orientation is one of the best surviving signifiers of the early track layout running through the arches in the City wall to the Old Station. The building holds considerable historic and aesthetic value, and overall is considered to be of high significance. The building is not listed, it is identified in the YCHCCA character area 22 (railway area) appraisal as a building of merit and is locally valued and identified on the York Open Planning Forum, a community created register of buildings and structures that are of importance and interest to local communities because of their historic or architectural interest. The supporting heritage statement concludes that due to its high significance it is worthy of Grade II listing. As such, whilst there has not been any indication that Historic England consider this building worthy of listing, meeting the criteria for Listing, the building is considered to satisfy the selection criteria for designation as a non-designated heritage asset, in terms of local interest.
5.94 Considering that the proposal is for demolition of non-original extensions and the making good of any proposed elevations to match existing and indeed have been designed to match the original elevations as far as possible, the alterations are small scale in nature and are not considered to affect the special character of the building. The special architectural or historic interest of the building would be predominantly intact and the scale of harm therefore is considered to be low. It is considered that the application will enhance, rather than harm the significance of this non-designated heritage asset in line with paragraph 197 of the NPPF.
Demolition of Railway Institute Band Room
5.95 In order to provide the access loop road around the York RI Gymnasium to serve the MSCP, the RI Band Room is proposed to be demolished. It is noted that the area within this part of the site is restricted, and further impacted by the position of the listed Water Tower.
5.96 The York Railway Institute band room used to be a Police Club. The Police had offices in the Queen Street area until moving into the railway station in the 1980s. The band room is not listed and is of negligible aesthetic, historical or evidential value. There is some limited communal value to the band rooms associated with the RI’s Silver Band, however this association is relatively recent. It is considered that the building has low significance and no objections to its demolition from a heritage perspective are raised.
- Loss of Community Facility
5.97 In respect to the loss of the band room as a community facility, objections have been raised to its loss from the Band’s members, citing that that alternative facilities need to be provided including a site that is accessible and has a loading bay for support equipment and should not be cost prohibitive to the Brass Bands, who are an amateur organisation.
5.98 The NPPF in Section 8 and specifically paragraph 92 requires LPAs to provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs. Planning decisions should plan positively for community facilities to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. There is no formal definition of a ‘community facility’ provided by the NPPF, however a community facility can include meeting and cultural buildings. Outlined in paragraph 92(c) planning decisions should guard against the loss of valued facilities and services, particularly those where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.
5.99 Draft Publication Policy HW1 seeks to protect existing community assets. The loss of such facilities will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that; i. facilities of equivalent or greater capacity and quality are provided elsewhere on the site, ii. Facilities (as defined above) are provided off-site in a location that better serves the local community’s needs, iii. the facilities no longer serve a community function and demonstrably cannot be adapted to meet other community needs or iv. evidence is provided that demonstrates the facilities are no longer financially viable.
5.100 The band room provides meeting and rehearsal space for three brass bands, and as such, it is an important facility to the musical community of the city and in this regard, can be considered as a community facility under the NPPF and Draft Policy HW1.
5.101 At the present time, it is understood that the applicants have progressed discussions with Network Rail (owners of majority of buildings in this area) and the Railway Institute (leasee) with regard to the relocation of the band room to an alternative location within the RI estate. A specific location however has not been confirmed, although there is potential for a solution to be delivered successfully subject to ongoing discussions. In terms of the project phasing, the loss of the band room is not required until phase 2 of the scheme which therefore allows for additional time for the replacement facility for the loss of the band room to be agreed. Officers consider that the applicants have demonstrated a commitment to re-providing facilities elsewhere on site, and a suitable worded condition is appropriate ensuring that a replacement facility is provided prior to the demolition of the existing band room.
5.102 It is considered that subject to the imposition of such a condition, the scheme would secure an equivalent facility to replace the existing RI band room, and would satisfy the requirements of draft policy HW1 as well as the NPPF (para. 92).
Substation and refuse store to serve the Railway Station
5.103 Within the area known as Parcel Square is also the existing substation that serves the Railway Station. The proposals include a replacement sub-station, positioned to the southern end of the South Train Shed, and adjacent to the short-stay car park. There are operational requirements and cost implications in respect to the distance the sub-station can be from the main station building, and this is considered to be a suitable location in this regards. It would not impede the existing pedestrian access into the station through the south train shed, from the short stay car park.
5.104 The the main considerations regarding the substation is its impact upon the setting of the Grade II* Railway Station. There are no elevation details for the substation, however these structures tend to be quite low level in height and would be a functional design. There may be additional measures in order that access to the structure is restricted. Under other circumstances, the relocation of the sub-station, if undertaken by Railway Undertakers, could be permitted development.
5.105 The position of the substation will be at the end of the southern train shed and is currently the area forming the long-stay car park. The southern train shed wall contains key architectural characteristics, and there would be some aesthetic and communal values associated with this forming a secondary access point to the main station originating from the design intention of the Station. However, given its position to the side, and off-set from the Station’s walls, it is not considered that a substation would impact detrimentally on the ability to continue to appreciate the southern train shed and the Station in general. Appropriately worded conditions can control the detailed design and scale of the substation to minimise harm. However, it is considered that the harm to the setting of this listed Station is assessed as less than substantial.
5.106 Further, the proposals indicate a refuse store at the southern end of the short stay car park and adjacent to the loop road. This would be for the sole use of the Station. Its location would enable it to be accessed by station staff as well as refuse vehicles, using the loop road. There are no elevation details for the refuse station and would normally comprise of an enclosure and of functional design. Similarly to the assessment of the substation, the refuse store is positioned to the side and off-set from the Station walls and would not impact upon the ability to continue to appreciate the southern train shed and the Station in general. Appropriately worded conditions can control the detailed design and scale of the substation to minimise harm. However, it is considered that the harm to the setting of this listed Station is assessed as less than substantial.
Extension to the Cholera Burial Ground
5.107 The Cholera Burial Ground is an important commemorative site for the citizens of York and therefore contains communal, evidential and historical values. It is an unusual feature within the landscape, and its aesthetic value is somewhat compromised by being next to the carriageway. Overall it has been attributed medium significance, but it is not a designated heritage asset, nor is it locally valued by being on the Open Planning Forum, and therefore is not considered to be a non-designated heritage asset in this regard. However, the proposals seek to extend the burial ground, as a mechanism to direct pedestrians to the footpath along the burial ground. The scheme also seeks two additional trees within the ground, to help buffer it from the road traffic. The works are considered to have a positive impact upon the burial ground, by enhancing its commemorative nature with the landscape.
Retention of Tram Shelter
5.108 The tram shelter was built between 1910 and 1931 at a time when electrification took control over horse-drawn trams, connecting the Railway Station to the centre of the city along Rougier Street. The service closed in 1935 and this association with the City’s tram system offers historical value, but the tram shelter overall offers low significance. The tram shelter is not a designated heritage asset, nor has it been identified on the Open Planning Forum and therefore is not considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The proposals involve its retention and will continue to show how the transport of this part of the city evolved over time and the relationship with the railway. Whilst the bus stops will be located to the south of their current position, the tram shelter can continue to provide shelter to visitors. Suggestions have been made that it could be converted to offer retail services, such as refreshments, as it is the focus of rough sleepers and it continues to be misused. Alternative proposals for the tram shelter are not the subject of this application, and would require additional considerations.
WIDER PUBLIC REALM AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT WORKS
5.109 Section 9 of the Framework outlines that the planning system should actively manage growth; and para.10. states that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. It is stated in para. 110 that planning applications proposals should a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements and as far as possible facilitating access to high quality public transport, including the provision of appropriate facilities to encourage public transport use; b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive, minimising the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles along with avoiding unnecessary street clutter and responding to local character and design standards; d) allow for the efficient delivery of good and access by service and emergency vehicles; and e) enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.
5.110 Additionally, para. 109 states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on the highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
5.111 The public transport interchange improvements at York Station are set out in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) 3 2011-2031 and draft local plan Policy T3 ‘York Railway Station and associated operational facilities’. York Rail Station is one of the main interchange points in York, allowing bus-to-bus and bus-to-rail changes. However the bus stops in the vicinity are amongst the most congested in the city centre in terms of vehicle arrivals per hour. This strategic public transport improvement is considered to be vital to widen the transport choices available to people who live in, work in or visit York. There are already significant demands on the transport infrastructure and with the potential for new services and anticipated growth, development will be supported that allows for:
- conservation and enhancement of the Grade II* station;
- improved setting and approaches to the station and meeting the demands of the modern rail traveller;
- increase railway capacity at York Station;
- assists in the improvement of public transport turn around and interchange facilities as part of a general package of measures to improve access at York Station, by all modes.
5.112 There are five key themes set out in the LTP 3 that the scheme has considered including i. the provision of quality alternatives to the car, providing more choice and enable more trips to be undertaken by sustainable means; ii. improving the strategic links to enhance with connections in and around York; iii. encouraging behavioural change to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport and continue improving road safety; iv. Tackling transport emission and v. enhancing public streets and spaces.
5.113 The Station Frontage Masterplan identifies the current area in front of York Station as being congested and vehicle dominated, detracting from the arrival experience that should be celebrating the city’s history and character. As an important transport interchange, this area is very chaotic and there is conflict between all highway users, pedestrians, cyclists, buses and vehicles. The scheme seeks the reorganisation of existing infrastructure to provide a more legible, attractive and safer environment for those accessing the station and the area, by all modes of travel.
5.114 In line with national planning guidance, the scheme seeks to prioritise pedestrian, cyclist and public transport modes. No objections are raised overall to the general highway layout by the Council’s Highway Network Management officers, however it is noted that there will need to be some revisions to the cycling infrastructure in order to comply with the updated DfT Local Transport Note for Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 01/20). This applies to all three phases and will ensure that priorities are made clear to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers and can be achieved though conditions.
5.115 The environment for pedestrians is vastly improved, with the zebra crossings that currently dominate Tea Room Square removed. The Portico will remain as the main entrance/exit into the station and with this in mind a new wide pedestrian crossing in front of the Portico will be provided, directing pedestrians to key routes into the city centre, which will be along the ramparts of the City Wall and leading to the route along the cholera burial ground. There will be improved pedestrian routes along Queen Street, on both sides of the highway, taking advantage of the City Wall ramparts.
5.116 Concern has been raised from the council’s Landscape Architect in respect to the cycling infrastructure with the two-way cycle lane through the arch disrupts space and setting to the city walls and will be at the expense of free movement across the pedestrian public space. One key aspect of the proposal is encouraging behavioural change, and this can be achieved by integrating new infrastructure with existing routes. There would be an improved and widened setting to the city walls for pedestrians to use/experience the walls, and a segregated route will ensure that conflict is minimised within this area.
5.117 Concerns have been raised that there is no dedicated cycle infrastructure to certain areas of the scheme; for example between Tea Room Square and Scarborough Bridge and between Lowther Terrace and the Station. The ability to achieve dedicated cycle infrastructure at these locations is subject to land not being within the control of the applicant and the available space to provide such mechanisms, as well as providing the other benefits to the highway network. The scheme will enable dedicated cycle segregation from Blossom Street to the Lendal Gyratory, in front of the Station. Informal cycle access through North train shed would still continue, enabling users to access the upgraded cycle facilities at Scarborough Bridge, however the formal arrangement of such infrastructure cannot be secured due to operational requirements of the Station. It is noted that the removal of the short stay car parking will remove some of the existing conflicts in the northern train shed.
5.118 The continued provision of and potential to increase cycle parking at the Station has been raised by a number of respondents. Cycle parking provision at the Station is controlled by its owners and operators, Network Rail and LNER, however it is in their interest to provide suitable facilities for users of train services. The proposals seek to retain existing provision at their current levels, and this arrangement is detailed in the LBC application; it is noted that with requirement to re-provide operational facilities, space to expand cycle parking facilities is limited and especially so given the grade II* listed nature of the building. The Council will work with Network Rail and LNER thorough conditions and informative, to ensure that a range of cycle stands and racking systems are provided to ensure that this caters for a wide range of users.
5.119 The plans indicate a new location for the replacement of cycle parking for Network Rail users who primarily work at George Stephenson House which is welcomed and details of the can be developed through condition. Parking for other modes of transport has also been considered and incorporated into the proposals, such as motorcycle parking, accessed from the loop road.
5.120 Existing bus stops are found directly in front of the station, with three eastbound stops located along the Portico (with a covered canopy), a fourth northbound stop within a central road island. On the opposite side of Station Road and in the opposite direction there are four southbound stops, each with a bus shelter. There is an additional bus stop situated outside the Principal York Hotel which serves a tourist bus service and the Ghost Bus service.
5.121 The bus stops will be relocated to the south of their current location, in the area currently occupied by Queen Street Bridge and the long-stay car park. The advantages of such relocation is the ability to provide a wider carriageway and an increased number of stops on each side (2 x super (double) stops and 1 x single stop), which will enable an increase from current capacity of 120 per hour to 212. The loop road around the York RI Gymnasium will provide a turning loop at the station, which has been identified as an issue with operators and will be a major improvement and support for bus operators in managing services across the city. An additional bus stop and two layover bays are also to be created on the loop road, providing capacity for long distance buses, race day buses and coach drop-off. The tourist sightseeing and ghost bus will retain a dedicated stops in a similar position as existing.
5.122 The applicant is satisfied that the scheme will provide an adequate increase in provision of bus services and ability for turning at the station. There have been responses from the Bus Forum that consider that these works will have longer term implication for the development of a better bus interchange/terminal. Such strategy is not currently part of York’s transport strategy and there is no funding to deliver such a facility. Commentators have also expressed the desire and commitment for these proposals to enable park and ride services and other city-centre bus services to be routed through the Station, for an effective interchange. The scheme does seek to enable increased capacity for services however any changes to the existing bus network/routes would need to be developed with bus operators. These suggestions are outside the scope of a planning application.
5.123 Other concerns in respect to the relocation of the bus stops has been the distance from the station that they will be and that they will not be undercover. The relocation of the bus stops (be within 30-110m away from the station) will benefit from greater space, providing a much more welcoming environment for buses users and less conflict with other users of the highway. Only eastbound stops are currently undercover, due to a canopy added onto the Portico in the 1940s. The main bus stops (excluding the stops on the loop and the tourist sightseeing and ghost bus) will have waiting shelters, which shall be the subject of condition in terms of their detailed design. However, the ability to provide undercover access from the station is not currently feasible taking into account the high heritage significance of the area. It is not considered that the scheme could achieve the benefits to the wider highway network and heritage assets without some loss to amenity. Whilst this is unfortunate, this loss of amenity is not considered to be material to the overall scheme.
5.124 The revised arrangements for taxis detail adequate taxi stacking facilities in the taxi rank, supported by possible additional stacking capacity to the rear of the MSCP. There is also the provision for drop off for 5no. vehicles and short stay car parking with 3no. disabled spaces for other users of the Station, replacing those displaced from the North Train Shed and Portico. The disabled spaces within the short stay car park will be an improvement on the existing dedicated disabled provision within and around the Station.
5.125 Tea Room Square is a particular focus of the scheme, with an overall aim of providing a pedestrianised space, and improve the setting of the listed (GII*) Station, the listed (GII) York Tap and Principal York Hotel. Due to existing access and operational requirements to the North Train Shed and servicing requirements of the Station and adjacent Hotel, vehicular access is retained, but will be restricted to prioritise pedestrian movements.
5.126 The reorganisation of existing highway infrastructure will facilitate the redistribution of road traffic, improving the flow of traffic, reducing congestion and idling vehicles in front of the station. Modelling has been undertaken which indicates minor changes to journey times for the majority of users. Buses are predicated to have a reduction in journey times although there would be a slight increase in journey times for cars leaving the short and long stay car parks at peak (PM) hour. However there are significant benefits predicted for taxis and drop-off vehicles.
5.127 The application complies with national and local planning policy, promoting sustainable transport through an improved public transport network on the approach and at the railway station. The development will bring about the improvement of the existing railway facility and capacity to meet additional services and anticipated growth. The requirements of paragraph 110 of the Framework would be achieved.
WIDER HERITAGE IMPACTS
5.128 This report has already considered the impact of some of the proposed works on individual heritage assets, such as the removal of Queen Street Bridge on the City Wall, demolition of Parcel Square and replacement infill building at the railway station. However, there are many more heritage assets (some designated, and some non-designated heritage assets) that are either within the boundary of the application site or are positioned close to the site’s boundary and the impacts of the scheme on their signfincance including setting and key views need to be assessed.
5.129 The NPPF (paragraph 184) states that heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. The statutory duties in relation to listed buildings and conservation areas are explained in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3. Additional central government policy on heritage assets contained in Section 16 of the NPPF is set out in paragraph 2.7.
5.130 When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the assets conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance (para 193).
- Significance of heritage assets affected (including from its setting)
5.131 The Framework says that the significance of a heritage asset is derived from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. The NPPF states that the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may changes as the asset and its surroundings evolve.
5.132 One of the key opportunities identified in the YSF Masterplan by the reorganisation of the highway infrastructure is the potential to improve the setting to both the City Walls, the Railway Station and the area around the Railway Institute.
5.133 The City Walls are a scheduled monument, which is one of the highest significance attributed to heritage assets and national planning policy (para 184) identify that they should be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. The City Wall is a largely intact medieval structure, built upon much older remains and modified by Victorian railway companies, which is evident by the railway arches. The walls and the ramparts are particularly prominent features of the site and had a major influence on York’s railway history and the character of this area. This heritage asset has very high significance which is derived from the aesthetic, evidential, historical and communal values it possesses.
5.134 The removal of Queen Street Bridge will enable the ramparts of Tofts Tower and the City Walls along Queen Street and Station Road to be reinstated. The relocation of the bus stops and the creation of a wide pedestrian crossing directly from the Portico will enable the City Walls and ramparts to be more prominent in views and the physicality of the walls able to be appreciated. The improvements to the public realm in the area between the City Walls and the relocated bus stops on the southern carriageway will reveal the railway arches, which have previously been obscured. The scheme is considered to enhance the experience of the City Walls, for residents and visitors of the City, as well as the aforementioned heritage values that contributes to the significance of this heritage asset.
5.135 York Railway Station is a grade II*, and its most significant feature is the curve of the trainshed roof, fine arches and cast-iron detailing. High aesthetic significance is also attributed to its plan form, with the concourses intact and mostly still in use as intended. The prominence and physicality of the Station is enhanced by its location outside of the city walls a result of the need to improve hospitality for travellers as well as congestion on the tracks at a junction outside of the city walls. The layout of the concourses, the inner and outer and then the portico provides a key arrival into the city. However, the arrival through the Portico and other secondary exits are not considered to have positive engagement with the historic environment of the City which is dominated by vehicles and traffic. The creation of pedestrian space within the Portico and the introduction of the crossing point positioned directly in front of the Portico will direct views to the City Walls, providing a welcoming arrival experience. The dominance of vehicles and traffic will be less prominent. Additionally, the setting of the Station when arriving from the City and views from the City Wall and Tofts Tower will enable the architectural quality of the Station to be greatly appreciated, with traffic and clutter removed or reduced so the original features and design intention of the Station can be appreciated.
5.136 The area around the York RI has a consistent character developed from its industrial past; red brick buildings built at close quarters. This area contains the GII Water Tower and Workshop and the York RI Gymnasium, which is locally valued. The proposals will result in the loss of the York RI band room, which is not listed and has negligible aesthetic, historical or evidential values, but has limited communal value. The introduction of the loop road will facility improved vehicular links and accessibility to this area, which has otherwise been restricted. The Water Tower and Workshop will begin to have some prominence as one of the oldest surviving railway water towers and remnants of York’s earliest station facilities. It is considered that the works overall will enhance from the significance of this part of the application site, that is often overlooked by the more dominating and historically significant City Walls and Railway Station.
- Ivy Cottage
5.137 Ivy Cottage is a brick built cabin is located just outside the first arch through the City Wall and aligned with the original tracks. It is thought to have been used as shelter for drivers shunting engines in and out of the Old Station. Dating from 1851-89 it is the oldest surviving remnant of the railway activity immediately around the arches through the City Wall. It is largely intact although its Yorkshire sashes have been replaced with unsympathetic uPVC windows. It remains a good example of undemonstrative railway architecture from the middle of the nineteenth century and is considered to have low significance.
5.138 The building is locally valued and identified on the Open Planning Forum and therefore is recognised as a non-designated heritage asset. In terms of assessing the effect of the application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, paragraph 197 of the Framework states that a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Ivy Cottage will be retained in its current form. The proposed improvements to the public realm to the area in front of the City Walls along Station Road will result in Ivy Cottage being a more prominent structure in this location. Feature paving will be used to highlight the route of the former railway lines and given that Ivy Cottage aligns with the original tracks and its former use, it will assist in telling the story of York’s railway history. It is considered that the application will enhance, rather than harm the significance of this non-designated heritage asset in line with paragraph 197 of the NPPF.
- Conservation Area
5.139 Paragraph 200 of the NPPF considers that LPAs should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.
5.140 The YCHCCA character area 22 (Railway Area) Appraisal identifies the city gateway as a weakness and opportunity, including specific reference to the station forecourt being reconfigured to enhance the experience for visitors entering the city by rail. Specific reference is also made to Queen Street Bridge being obsolete, and detrimental to the setting of the City Walls and listed buildings and can improve pedestrian routes to the station.
5.141 A key setting to this part of the conservation area is the approach from Blossom Street; which is dominated by traffic at this important junction into the City, and is a detractor. All four corners of the junction feature listed buildings (Bar Convent (GI), 2-10 Blossom Street (GII), The Punch Bowl (GII) and the Windmill (GII). There are negligible alterations proposed in the application that directly impact this approach. Any changes will be experienced further down Queen Street, following the removal of Queen Street Bridge.
5.142 The approach from the City, along Station Road between the York Principal Hotel and Leeman Statue has two contrasting settings; the road which is dominated by traffic and flanked by mature trees on both sides and the footpath, to the south of the Chlorea Burial Ground. The YCHCCA identifies a key view, Station Avenue (Ref: 18) between the Station and The Minster, which predominantly can be viewed from the road rather than the footpath.
5.143 It is highlighted that there are several key themes when analysing the existing setting when considering key and current movements through the site; that is the dominance of road traffic and the poor pedestrian experience which discourages the wider appreciation of the rich heritage of the built environment that occupies this part of the city. The key principles of the scheme are to rationalise vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements, improve connectivity and allow for more efficient use of space and improvements to the public realm. The achievement of these principles would enhance both approaches to this area, and the setting of the City Walls, Listed Buildings that are located within and outside the site boundary would be enhanced. It is considered that as the key aims of the scheme follow the opportunities set out in the YCHCCA character area 22 appraisal, enhance both approaches from the City and from Blossom Street and overall the scheme is considered to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.
ARCHAEOLOGY
5.144 The application site is located within the Central Area of Archaeological Importance (AAI) and in an area where nationally significant Roman archaeological features and deposits as well as 19th century railway archaeology are located.
5.145 Paragraph 194 (b) of the NPPF includes footnote 63 which states that non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monumentsshould be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. Paragraph 194 b) states that substantial harm to or loss of assets of the highest significance (including scheduled monuments) should be wholly exceptional. Paragraph 193 of the Framework sets out 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; the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification (Para.194).
5.146 2018 Draft Plan Policy D6 states that proposals that affect archaeological features and deposits will be supported where they are accompanied by (i) an evidence based heritage statement, (ii) designed to avoid substantial harm to archaeological deposits; and where harm to archaeological deposits is unavoidable, detailed mitigation measures have been agreed with the Council.
5.147 The archaeological impacts in relation to Tofts Tower (Tower 13) and the ramparts have been discussed in this report at the section covering removal of Queen Street Bridge and associated works. This part of the report will focus upon other areas of the site that has archaeological significance, including the Unipart building and the area of the surface-level car park.
5.148 Significant archaeological investigations have been undertaken around the Unipart building and that area of the site as part of the York Central scheme, including monitored ground investigations in 2018 and archaeological evaluation during June-July 2020. A roman burial was located c.800mm below modern ground surface on the north west edge of the building as well as a Roman pit noted in the deepest part of an evaluation trench on the north-east side.
5.149 In the area of the surface-level car park, the site of the proposed MSCP, the archaeological evaluation confirmed that railway buildings (in this instance fitting sheds) survive beneath the modern car park make up levels. Re-deposited Roman material was noted in trenches outside of the shed footprints confirming the presence of disturbed Roman archaeology in this area.
5.150 A layer of organic material (peat and silt) was noted in the SE corner of the plot and the nature of this material is still under investigation. Results from wider deposit modelling studies in the adjacent York Central site suggest this material may form part of a kettle hole and will require further investigation.
5.151 In summary, these investigations have proved that there is the potential for organic deposits, pockets of isolated in-situ Roman material, including burials, to survive outside of landscaped areas and 18th century building footprints. The proposed demolitions, construction works, and service diversion/creation all have the potential to negatively impact on any surviving archaeological resource. This resource will largely relates to the Roman period and 19th century railway archaeology.
5.152 An archaeological watching brief will be required on all ground works including grubbing up of any foundations following initial demolition, installation of service and construction. A burial license should be applied for in advance should in-situ burial removal be required.
5.153 An archaeological excavation will be required in areas where significant archaeological deposits survive which are unable to be preserved in situ. Time must be allowed for excavation of deposits and recording of features/structures including 19th century railway infrastructure.
5.154 In the area of the proposed car park further palaeo-environmental assessment and dating of the organic deposit noted in the evaluation will be required to investigate the kettlehole in this area and try to better understand the state of preservation of this deposits. Given the current difficulties on gaining intrusive access to this car park area this can take place as part of the mitigation excavation.
5.155 Whilst the significance of the archaeological interests is high, the impacts could be mitigated through the use of planning conditions requiring an archaeological watching brief and excavation. Therefore in applying the requirements of Paragraph 194 (b) of the NPPF and footnote 63 which states that non-designated heritage assests of archaeological interest which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets, the scale of harm to the significance of these archaeological features and deposits is considered to result in less than substantial harm. Inline with paragraph 196 of the Framework, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The public benefits of the proposals are considered collectively at paragraphs 5.210-5.218.
LANDSCAPE
- Green Infrastructure
5.156 Green infrastructure is an overarching framework relating to green assets, and include biodiversity, open space provision and public realm. An important component to York’s green infrastructure network is the green corridors and in specific reference to this development scheme, the city walls (ref 11) are identified as a green infrastructure corridor of district significance, with a primary function of archaeology and nature conservation in the Biodiversity Action Plan (2017). The 2018 Draft Plan policy GI1 considers the strategic delivery of green infrastructure, with draft policy GI3 setting out specific policies to protect and enhance York’s green infrastructure networks.
5.157 Planted wildflower plugs have been successfully established on the ramparts of the City Walls alongside Queen Street. The proposals present an opportunity to continue the application of wildflower mix on the rampart earthworks and the specific nature of the landscape operations in this area and details such as soil specification can be included within a condition requiring a landscaping scheme.
5.158 The Council’s Landscape Architect has highlighted that the removal of Queen Street Bridge presents an opportunity to introduce tree cover in an area that could not previously accommodate it. Street trees will be located on the eastern side of the city wall, adjacent to an improved area of public realm and the relocated bus stops. It is considered that the introduction of tree cover and the continuation of wildflower planting to the ramparts is an enhancement to this green corridor, meeting policy GI3 of the 2018 Draft Plan.
- Landscaping
5.159 Section 12 of the Framework focuses upon achieving well design places, with the creation of high quality buildings and places being fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Paragraph 127 b) seeks to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping.
5.160 2018 Draft Plan policy D2 outlines that detailed landscape schemes will be required as part of development proposals since these are significant factors in the aesthetic and functional quality and success of a development. In particular, Policy D2 encourages and will support developments that; iv. create opportunities to enhance the public use and enjoyment of existing and proposed streets and open space and vii. Include sustainable, practical, and high quality soft and hard landscape details and planting proposals that are clearly evidence based and make a positive contribution to the character of streets, spaces and other landscapes.
- Trees
5.161 One of the key benefits of the scheme and reorganisation of the highway is the opportunity to provide tree coverage, where they could not previously be accommodated. The YCHCCA Management Strategy identify that trees are an essential element of townscape by framing vies, create attractive settings to historic buildings and ruins and increasing biodiversity.
5.162 Four distinct areas of tree planting for the site have been identified; the cholera burial ground, tea room square, the area in front of the City Walls, where the bus stops will be relocated to and along the station frontage, as well as in front of the York RI Gymnasium. These will complement the existing amenity trees positioned alongside the City Walls along station road and along the footpath adjacent to the Cholera Burial ground.
5.163 Concern raised by the Council’s Landscape Architect in respect to the proposed street trees (with the exception of those in Tea Room Square) along the station frontage, which are identified on the indicative landscape plans to be in planters. These trees are expected to provide a sizeable canopy and this would not be achieved if in planters. Species and planting details have not been provided to date however the applicants have confirmed that the arrangement is more akin to trees being planted in a raised bed and not a planter and so will effectively be accommodated at ground level. The planting detail in respect to these trees with be developed further through conditons, which will also ensure that they are compatible with existing and future proposed utilities and street furniture.
5.164 The cholera burial ground is proposed to be extended in a southerly direction to the realigned carriageway. This not only improves the green spaces in this part of the conservation area but it also is a mechanism to direct pedestrians to the new crossing and onto the main footpath that leads to the city centre along the ramparts and city walls. Two additional trees are proposed to be planted within this extended part which would be welcome additions to the treescape. The Landscape Architect has suggested that the application presents an opportunity for betterment, in respect to the cholera burial ground, suggesting a low hedge along the outer edge of the burial ground in order to reduce the influence of the traffic on this green space and make it more appealing for general use. There is little delineation of the carriageway with this green space. The suggestion of the addition of low hedging does not currently fall within the landscape proposals, and discussions shall continue in respect to securing such betterment under the landscaping conditions, taking into account potential maintenance, ownership considerations and utility routes that may be beneath the carriageway.
5.165 The proposals will seek to provide Tea Room Square as a pedestrian space, although marginally off-set by vehicular access partly remaining to the north train shed to satisfy the operational requirements of station as well as hotel and station servicing. Different surface materials will be used to differentiate the vehicular route. Positioned within the area will be three raised, oval beds with integral seating and multi-stemmed trees which will provide a valuable quality of seating and effective greening of the square.
5.166 In respect of existing trees, two most significant trees within the influence of the site are the notably large, mature London Plane trees located at the foot of the ramparts on Station Road near to Ivy Cottage and referred to as G10 in the tree survey. The plans indicate a retaining wall wrapping part way round Ivy Cottage. General tree protection measures are provided in the application but a fully detailed arboricultural method statement is required to ensure that methodology and construction details where any proposed level changes, surface materials and boundary treatments are acceptable within the root protection area of these existing trees.
- Other Hard and Soft Landscaping (street furniture, lighting, surface materials)
5.167 There is an expanse of hard standing across the site and along with the surfaces in the wider YCHCCA they are inconsistent. There is a great visual impact as a result of the reorganisation of the highway infrastructure, and the area in front of the station where the relocation taxi rank, main carriageway and bus waiting lanes is relocated too, there is in the region of 7 lanes of traffic. The use of tarmacadam for vehicle routes is the most practical. However, in contrast there will be wider pedestrian routes particularly in front of the City Walls, the Portico and Tea Room Square. Furthermore, there will be stone feature paving that depicts the former railway lines in the area to the front of the Portico and the City Walls. There will be a variety of surface materials, scales and textures and their quality will have an aesthetic quality.
5.168 There are contrasting views as to the preferred material for cycle routes, with stone setts being indicated on the plans, however the York Cycle Campaign citing that these are dangerous and their preference would be asphalt. From an aesthetic point of view, an asphalt surfacing would be harmful when significant improvements will have been made to the quality of space, responding sensitively to the setting of heritage assets and given that the cycle way is segregated from the highway. Stone setts can have a straight cut surface with flush joints to provide an overall even surface that may satisfy these concerns, however details of all surfacing materials can be considered through an appropriately worded condition in order to take into account long term maintenance and potential safety issues as well as construction and cost implications.
5.169 Indicative location of street furniture (benches and bus shelters) have been provided and their detailed design has been explored to some degree. There is an agreed approach that benches should be simple, durable and robust, whilst also offering comfort. Furthermore, their design and location may contribute to counter terrorism mitigation measures and can be developed via condition.
5.170 Lighting has been considered by the applicant, given its importance in facilitating the safe movement of pedestrians, cyclists and road users. It is anticipated that main vehicular routes will take the traditional street lighting approach with public realm areas undertaking a complimentary approach, encouraging visitors to use the space and promote sense of safety whilst being sensitive to the historic nature of the surrounding environment. The lighting details can be developed through a condition, to ensure that there is an agreed position.
5.171 It is considered that the proposals will contribute positively to the quality and character of the existing landscape, and enhance features such as the ramparts and other heritage assets and the historic environment more generally. The hard and soft landscaping proposals are considered to be well suited to the scale and practical complexity of the scheme, and conditions will ensure that they are of a high-quality, and can satisfy the requirements for highway adoption and counter terrorism mitigation measures.
ECOLOGY
5.172 Bat surveys undertaken in 2017/18 and 2020 have identified that the site does not provide any suitable habitat for foraging/commuting for bats and low level activity was identified. Early bat surveys (July 2017) identified a Common Pipistrelle day roost in the York RI Gymnasium, however at that time this building was not identified as a building to be partly demolished. As the proposals have developed, the rear extensions of the RI gymnasium will be demolished to allow for the loop road and additional parking for use by the RI. Additional surveys have been undertaken in 2020 and have found similar low levels of bat activity, however no roosts were found within this building, the York RI Band room building or the water tower.
5.173 The York RI band room is proposed to be demolished and whilst no bats have been located within this building it has a high potential to support roosting bats in the future. Any bats present could be affected by disturbance during demolition. A precautionary approach is recommended in the form of Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAM) in relation to both the York RI band room and Gymnasium to avoid negative impact on bats. Further, if the demolitions of the buildings do not commence within one year from the date of planning consent being granted, updated bat surveys will be required to establish if there has been any changes in presence/absence of bats and to identify new or revised avoidance and mitigation measures.
AIR QUALITY
5.174 Paragraph 180 of the Framework seeks to ensure that new development is appropriate for its location, taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment.
5.175 The site is located within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), declared on the basis of exceedances of the health based annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective (40yg/m3). NFFP paragraph 181 covers air quality and cites that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in AQMA and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
5.176 Draft Local Plan policy ENV1 covers Air Quality states that development will only be permitted if the mechanisms are in place to mitigate adverse impacts and prevent future exposure to poor air quality, helping to protect human health.
5.177 The Environmental Statement has assessed the potential changes in air quality arising from the construction and operation of the scheme.
- Construction phases
5.178 The increase in heavy goods vehicle movements would be within the normal variation and is a small amount of traffic on this road; the impact will be negligible. Consideration of emission associated with construction traffic accessing the site has been scoped out of the assessment. Mitigation measures for impacts from dust on local sensitive receptors can be adequately managed within a CEMP.
- Operational road traffic emissions
5.179 There is the potential that the proposed scheme will impact existing air quality as a result of road traffic exhaust emissions (such as NO2, PM10 and PM2.5) associated with redistribution of traffic around the proposed scheme during the operational phase. The redistribution of road traffic will improve the flow of traffic, reducing congestion and idling vehicles in front of the station.
5.180 Taking account of the conservative modelling assumptions and the beneficial impacts observed at some receptors with the scheme in place, whilst the impact of the scheme is significant along Queen Street (and at the junction with blossom Street/Nunnery Lane) in the opening year, following expected implements to air quality (due to reduced emissions form vehicles and the uptake of low emission buses due to the York Clean Air Zone), it is likely that pollution will reduce and the long term effect of the scheme on air quality would not be significant. Whilst there is uncertainty over future background pollutant concentrations and vehicle emission improvements, on balance, based on the sensitivity testing undertaken, Public Protection agree with the conclusions drawn by the applicant’s consultant in this respect.
5.181 It should be noted that the air quality at some residential properties on Queen Street is likely to deteriorate as a result of the scheme due to realignment of the road bringing dwellings closer to the carriageway, although such locations are not predicted to breach health based objectives.
5.182 The report has covered electric vehicle charging facilities within the section relating specifically to the MSCP.
5.183 It is therefore considered that the long term potential impact in air quality arising from the construction and operation of the scheme is that pollution will reduce and that the impact on air quality would not be significant, satisfying 2018 Draft Plan policy ENV1 and paragraph 181 of the NPPF.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
5.184 The Framework sets out in paragraph 180a that planning decisions should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development. Draft 2018 Plan policy ENV2 will seek to ensure that development proposals do not give rise to unacceptable environmental impacts such as noise without effective mitigation measures.
5.185 Noise and Vibration have been covered within the Environmental Statement, the ES Addendum (dated July 2020) and the Technical Note by ARUP dated 13 November 2020. The noise monitoring locations and methodology are acceptable, as well as the methodology used within the assessment. The site is located within a high urban environment where daytime baseline noise is dominated by traffic and the railway. Road traffic is less busy at night-time, but still remains a significant source of sound.
5.186 Additional information has been provided identifying the proposed mitigation measures to reduce noise levels at receptor R1 (Queen Street residences), where the predicted noise levels are predicted to be at times 23dB above the threshold set against existing noise levels within this area. The implementation of the noise mitigation measures set out in a CEMP will satisfactorily reduce noise levels at this receptor. As such, it is not considered that the applicants would be expected to fund additional noise measures at the properties on Queen Street, such as secondary glazing, which has been suggested by an objector.
5.187 Receptor R3 relates to the Principal Hotel, a local hotel business that does rely on providing hotel accommodation for guests; including resting space as well as sleeping space. Additional information has been provided on the noise levels that have been predicted at R3 and the measures that can be taken to reduce noise levels during the day. Whilst further would will be required in respect to employing correct noise mitigation measures for this receptor, the noise from the works can be reduced to a level that would not have an adverse impact on the operation of the hotel.
5.188 It is considered that the use of correct noise mitigation measures (controlled via a CEMP condition) at all residential receptors would result in reduced noise levels to a satisfactorily level during construction activities and the proposal satisfies draft Local Plan policy ENV2 and paragraph 180 of the Framework. There would be no significant noise or vibration effects once the scheme is operational.
LAND CONTAMINATION
5.189 NPPF paragraph 178 sets out that planning decisions should take into account ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination with the responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or land owner (para. 179).
5.190 The submitted Geotechnical Desk Study ref: YSF-ARP-00-XX-RP-CG-001 dated 14 March 2019 has investigated the potential contamination sources to the areas/projects of Queen Street Highway Works, the taxi rank and short stay parking and public realm works in tea room square.
5.191 A number of potential contamination sources have been identified including railway use, burial grounds, made ground and current use. The majority of the site will be directly underlain by made ground of unknown composition and thickness, in addition a preliminary assessment has identified some potential for unexploded ordnance(UXO) on site. Further investigation is recommended including a detailed unexploded ordnance (UXO) study and a ground investigation to characterise thickness and nature of made and natural superficial materials, investigate ground water profiles through ground water monitoring, assess soil contamination to inform re-use or disposal, nature retaining walls and retained material, investigate backfill, earthworks and voids associated with Queen Street Bridge. Public Protection officers support the conclusions of the submitted Study and further investigation relating to land contamination can be secured by conditions.
CRIME
5.192 The Framework sets out in paragraph 127 f) that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible, and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience. Crime is taken to include terrorism. The national Planning Practice Guidance explains that for locations that generate crowds in public places, applicants and LPAs should consider appropriate security measures in the design of building and spaces with good counter-terrorism protective security supporting wider crime prevention.
5.193 The National Counter Terrorism Security Office has published Crowded Places Guidance (2017). This sets out that the Department for Transport is responsible for and sets a counter-terrorism security policy, issues regulations and undertakes compliance activity across a number of transport modes including rail. Reducing the vulnerability of crowded places is a key part of this Government’s Counter Terrorism strategy.
5.194 The railway station and its environs will be a ‘crowded place’ and a significant transport hub and is potentially attractive to terrorists using a broad spectrum of attack methodologies. The impact of such attacks can be mitigated by the inclusion of physical security measures at the planning stage of a project. It is noted that any security measures should be balanced with the day-to-day operation of the site, and should not compromise safety of the site.
5.195 A key recommendation from the Counter Terrorism Security Advisor is related to the position of the taxi rank and it is recommended that this is re-positioned so to achieve the optimum enforced stand-off between the main building and areas where crowds congregate. This has been considered, however there is no practical solution to its relocation, given the available space within the site, access arrangements for users and vehicles to and from the taxi rank and to the station as well as consideration of the possible heritage impacts, and funding implications. There are other hostile vehicle mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce the speed of a hostile vehicle including bollards, planters, landscaping and/or other street furniture. Additionally, there are further site specific measures that can be adapted into the scheme, including building construction methods including glazing and materials so it is robust to withstand the effects of a blast as well as widespread use of CCTV coverage and lighting. A condition requiring site specific counter terrorism security measures to be incorporated into the development is recommended.
FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE
5.196 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 where there is a low probability of flooding. The development generally comprises of transport infrastructure and public realm works and can be identified as ‘essential infrastructure’ in line with Table 2: flood risk vulnerability classification of the Planning Practice Guidance. This type of development is appropriate for all flood zones.
5.197 New drainage is likely to be required in three areas of the site; the area of Parcel Square and the short stay car park and taxi rank/drop-off, the MSCP and the temporary car park following the demolition of the Unipart building, and the ground is identified to be typically made up of clay-based deposits with low permeability. The current drainage proposals have not discounted the use of infiltration, and therefore conditions are required to ensure that surface water disposal is in line with the Council’s SuDS guidance and the drainage design developed alongside public sewer diversion works and water supply apparatus protection measures.
5.198 There are significant public sewers and Yorkshire Water drainage assets in the site, and the works will require agreement with Yorkshire Water for connections, diversions and decommission of any build over or diversion of significant public sewers.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.199 Objections have been received citing that there are opportunities to make improvements in the proposed scheme for disabled people and that the application is not accompanied by an Equality Impact Assessment. The scheme has considered people with disabilities and reduced mobility in line with paragraph 110 b) of the Framework, with the provision of disabled parking within the long and short stay car parking.
5.200 As part of the evidence base to the 2018 Draft Plan an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) – incorporating the Better Decision Making Tool (April 2018) has assessed the potential impact of the policies of the local plan on different groups in York. Overall the EqIA does not identify any negative impacts on any of the protected characteristics as a result of the implementation of the draft policies.
DEVELOPMENT DELIVERY AND PHASING
5.201 The City of York Council are the applicant and as the majority of the works are related to the reorganisation of the highway infrastructure, they with contractors will be undertaking the majority of the work. Network Rail are other majority landowners and is expected to work alongside the Council in developing the scheme, as well as other stakeholders. The scheme has been designed in three phases and delivered sequentially. However if funding comes available sooner they could be combined and delivered as a single construction phase. Any precise timings and extent of each phase is subject to finalisation and depend on a number of factors including funding availability, rail regulatory issues and the safe and successful ongoing operation of the station.
5.202 Phase 1 comprises major construction works, including the demolition of Queen Street Bridge and delivers the most significant changes to the pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and public transport. Phase 2 includes the reorganisation of transport infrastructure around the Railway Institute and the reorganisation of parking including the construction of the MSCP. Phase 3 includes the works around Parcel Squareand other works within and surrounding the Railway Station.
5.203 The first two phases stand alone in their own right, designed to implement the long term changes and minimise the ‘re-do’ of any works undertaken to achieve the overall final scheme. The phasing strategy will be subject to a condition prior to commencement of work on site.
CONCLUSION OF HARM TO HERITAGE ASSESTS (PUBLIC BENEFITS)
5.204 As detailed above there are numerous heritage assets, of differing significance (ranging from Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Area, archaeological features and deposits, and non-designated heritage assets) that would be affected by the scheme. The significance of heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting.
5.205 In summary, the designated heritage assets and the works contained within the application which impacts upon their significance includes:
- City Walls (Scheduled Monument and GI listed): removal of Queen Street Bridge, highway infrastructure and public realm works, reinstatement to ramparts
- Railway Station (GII*): demolition of Parcel Square and replacement infill building, public realm works (Tea Room Square), highway infrastructure works including relocated taxi rank, short and long stay car parking and crossing directly from Portico and relocated substation and refuse store
- Water Tower and Workshop (GII): highway infrastructure works (setting)
- Queen Street Properties (No’s 17-20 GII): installation of raising to front, highway and public realm works
- York Central Historic Core Conservation Area: views, setting and approaches from highway and public realm works
- Archaeological features and deposits located within the Central Area of Archaeological Importance (AAI): City Walls and ramparts and removal of Queen Street Bridge, area of MSCP and Unipart building (as per paragraph 194 (b) and footnote 63, these are subject to the policies for designated heritage assets).
5.206 The assessment concludes that the proposals will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of each of the above identified heritage assets. 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.
- Public Benefits
5.207 National 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)
5.208 The proposals affecting the heritage assets are to facilitate the wider scheme that is referred to as the York Station Frontage which seeks the re-organisation of the existing highway infrastructure in the area surrounding York Railway Station, from Lendal Gyratory to Blossom Street, including the area surrounding York Railway Institute (RI). Included within the proposals are substantial public realm works that would substantially enhance the setting of highly significant heritage assets, namely the City Walls and York Station.
5.209 The public benefits derived under each of the objectives (economic, social and environmental) are outlined below.
Economic Objective
5.210 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.
5.211 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).
5.212 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.
5.213 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
5.214 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. This would benefit both residents and visitors of the City.
5.215 The scheme, given the proposed cycling infrastructure to be provided and the links to existing cycling infrastructure will continue to enable and support healthy lifestyles.
5.216 It is considered therefore that the development would achieve a well-designed place, complying with paragraph 127 of the Framework. 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.
Environmental Objective
5.217 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.
5.218 Whilst the impact of the scheme on the heritage assets have been discussed in length, it is noted that the development proposals would overall conserve the heritage assets, including their contribution to setting, improving the character and appearance of the York Central Historic Core Conservation Area and making a positive contribution to sustainable communities including their economic vitality and local character and distinctiveness (para. 192 b of the Framework).
Conclusion of public benefits
5.219 It is demonstrated that the York Station Frontage scheme would deliver economic, social and environmental objectives. The objective demonstrate that public benefits would be derived from the proposed development. The public benefits outlined above are considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to the heritage assets identified above. The application therefore complies with paragraph 196 of the NPPF in this regard.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 The proposed scheme is primarily focused on the reorganisation of existing transport infrastructure in the areas surrounding York Railway Station and the Railway Institute. The key principles of the scheme are to rationalise pedestrian cycle, and vehicle movements, improve the transport interchange, connectivity and allow for more efficient use of space and improvements to the public realm including substantially enhancing the setting of highly significant heritage assets, namely the City Walls (Scheduled Monument and Grade I) and York Station (Grade II*) and other listed building within the site. It is considered that the aims of the scheme comply with Policy DP2 ‘Sustainable Development’ of the Draft Plan 2018 which seeks to provide efficient and affordable transport links by prioritising and improving strategic public transport, cycle and pedestrian networks as well as conserving and enhancing those elements that contribute to the special character and setting of the historic city.
6.2 The ability to achieve the highway improvements is principally through the removal of Queen Street Bridge and construction of new highway at grade level including loop around Railway Institute gymnasium and Water Tower. In addition, the creation of a new taxi rank, relocation of the bus interchange and the rationalisation of short and long stay car parking is critical to the ability to deliver the public transport improvements for those who live in, work in or visit York. These public interchange improvements are set out in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) 3 2011-2031 and draft local plan Policy T3 ‘York Railway Station and associated operational facilities’.
6.3 A key focus of the scheme has been the ability to enhance the significance of the setting of listed buildings and other non-designated heritage assets that sit within the site, as well as the character and appearance of the York Central Historic Core Conservation Area. The YCHCCA management strategy identifies the Station Approach and Memorial Gardens as a priority for improvement, describing it as a disappointing way to arrive into the City. The application has assessed the effect of the proposal on the significance of the non-designated heritage assets, which have been identified as 22 Queen Street and the RI Gymnasium building, in line with paragraph 197 of the Framework. The direct impact of the proposal on the scale of harm to the significances of these NDHA is considered to be low. In terms of the assessment of the application to the designated heritage assets, the assessment concludes that there will be less than substantial harm to these. The archaeological features and deposits are located within the Central Area of Archaeological Importance (AAI) and as per paragraph 194 (b) and footnote 63, these are subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. The harm to the assets of archaeological interest is also assessed as less than substantial harm. Regard is had to advice in paragraphs 193 and 194 of the NPPF 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) and any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Regard is also had to the legislative requirements to give considerable importance and weight to harm to a listed building.The public benefits of the proposal are summarised at paragraphs 5.210 to 5.218 above and are considered to be collectively sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to these heritage assets even when giving great weight to the conservation of these assets. In general terms, there will be the creation of public spaces and improved setting to the City Walls and ramparts and Railway Station, enhancing the features that make this City so unique.
6.4 The creation of an attractive public realm and quality and character of the green infrastructure, particularly landscape is critical to the success of the scheme as a mechanism to enhance the feature of the historic environment. Consideration has been given to the requirements for highway adoption and counter terrorism mitigation measures, and details shall be scoured via appropriate conditions.
6.5 The loss of the band room as a community facility is on balance acceptable given the commitment of the applicants to secure appropriate replacement facilities which is secured by appropriate conditions.
6.6 The application, subject to appropriate conditions satisfies other aspects in terms of crime and design, environmental quality, air quality and climate change. It is considered that there are no protective polices within the NPPF which provide a clear reason for refusal and that the proposed scheme would not have adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the polices in the NPPF taken as a whole, taking into account the details of the scheme and any material planning considerations. The proposal is thus sustainable development for which the NPPF carries a presumption in favour.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve
1 TIME2 Development start within three years
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and other submitted details:-
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CH-1005 Rev H General Arrangement Final Scheme
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CH-1012 Rev D Proposed Car Parking and Taxi Infrastructure
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CD-1013 Rev B Proposed Temporary Surface Car Park (West) Unipart Site Car Parking
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1021 Rev B York City Wall Details Sheet 1 of 4
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1022 Rev B York City Wall Details Sheet 2 of 4
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1023 Rev B York City Wall Details Sheet 3 of 4
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1024 Rev B York City Wall Details Sheet 4 of 4
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1025 Rev B Retaining Wall Long Section
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1026 Rev B Generic Section Marks
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1027 Rev B Generic Sections Sheet 1 of 2
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1029 Rev B Generic Sections Sheet 2 of 2
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CU-1031 Rev C Proposed Diversions Statutory Utilities Diversions
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CD-1037 Rev C Proposed Main Drainage Network
- L1807_A10-103 F06 York East MSCP Site Plan Ground Level
- L1807_A10-104 F06 York East MSCP Site Plan Upper Level
- L1807_A10-200 D01 York East MSCP Sections as Proposed
- L1807_A10-300 D01 York East MSCP North and East Elevations as proposed
- L1807_A10-400 D01 York East MSCP South and West Elevations as Proposed
- L1807_YRK-A10-104 F07 MSCP Levels 2/3 and 4/5
- L1807_YRK_A10-111 F01 MSCP Roof levels 5/6
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CB-1042 York RI Gymnasium Proposed
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DB-1060 11-20 Queen Street and York RI Proposed
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CH-0008 Rev C General Arrangement QS Access
- LBC.YRK.009 Rev C Parcel Square - Floor Plan Proposed
- LBC.YRK.003 Rev C General Arrangement- Ground Floor Plan - Proposed
- LBC.YRK.012 Rev C Parcel Square - Section EE Proposed
- LBC.YRK.018 Rev B Parcel Square - Elevation 2-2 Proposed
Demolition Plans
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-DR-CX-1010 Rev B Demolition Plan
- LBC.YRK.008 Rev B Parcel Square - Floor Plan Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC.YRK.002 Rev B General Arrangement Ground - Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC.YRK.011 Rev C Parcel Square - Section EE Demolitions and Alterations
- LBC.YRK.017 Rev B Parcel Square - Elevation 2-2 Demolitions and Alterations
- YSF-RP-00_XX-DR-CB-1041 York RI Gymnasium Demolitions
- LBC.YRK.041 Rev A RI - Elevations - Demolitions and Alterations
- YSF-ARP-00-XX-CB-1061- 11-20 Queen Street and York RI Demolitions
Technical Reports
- MSCP-ARUP-ZZ-ZZ-RP-0001 Energy statement (Job Number 257903-00)
- MSCP CEEQUAL Pre-assessment dated 4 November 2020
- Bat report (Job Number 257903) dated 4 November 2020
- ARUP (2018) Bat survey report, York Station Frontage (ES Volume III: Appendix 8B)
- ARUP (2018) Bat Report, York Central (ES Volume III: Appendix 8C)
- Noise report (Further information Technical Note): report to Public Protection Comments 03/08/2020 (Job Ref 257903)
- 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)
- Technical Note- Queen Street residences and Vehicle Access rev E dated 27 November 2020 (Job ref YSF-ARP-00-XX-TN-CH-0001)
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.
3 No development shall commence, other than enabling works of any phase, sub-phase or building until a detailed Phasing Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the approved Phasing Strategy and/or any subsequent amendment to it that has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The strategy will outline the key elements and projected timeline of each phase of development, and how they will be delivered. The strategy shall include the phasing of infrastructure (including all roads, pedestrian and cycle routes), undertake a three stage road safety audit, landscaping (hard and soft) and public realm works (palette of surfacing materials, street furniture, wayfinding and lighting), retained and proposed utility and service runs, demolition of buildings (or part of) and structures. A timeline for security measures should be set out.
The landscaping and public realm works shall take into account the security masterplan as may be approved and the Phasing Strategy shall be updated and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within three months of the security masterplan being approved, to reflect these requirements.
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in appropriate phases, to deliver a coherent and consistent development, minimise road safety risks associated with changes proposed by the development and to ensure that the trees are able to perform as intended within the approved landscape because the proposed tree planting is critical to the amenity of the development.
4 In accordance with the timeframe as set out within the Phasing Strategy, a security masterplan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. This masterplan will detail the overall security measures insofar as they relate to the proposed development, and include detail of the proposed interventions and products to be used, in conjunction with the Phasing Strategy. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the approved security masterplan.
Reason: To ensure that the development incorporates security and counter terrorism measure within the development in accordance with paragraph 127 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019).
5 Prior to commencement of development of any phase, sub phase or building a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the relevant phase, sub phase or building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the relevant construction period for that phase, sub phase or building.
The CEMP shall include the following details:
- Arrangements for parking of vehicles for site operatives and visitors.
- Storage areas for plant and materials used in the construction of the development
- The location of site compounds.
- Details of wheel washing facilities for the cleaning of wheels of vehicles leaving the site, including location and type.
- Suitable road sweeping measures.
- A programme of works including phasing, and measures for the control of (construction) traffic to and from the site, and within the site, during construction
- A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works.
- Dust - A site specific risk assessment of dust impacts in line with the guidance provided by IAQM (see http://iaqm.co.uk/guidance/) and include a package of mitigation measures commensurate with the risk identified in the assessment (a Dust Management Plan). Mitigation measures may include, but would not be restricted to, appropriate measures to ensure dust generated by the development does not travel beyond the site boundary, on site wheel washing, restrictions on use of unmade roads, agreement on the routes to be used by construction traffic, restriction of stockpile size (also covering or spraying them to reduce possible dust), targeting sweeping of roads, minimisation of evaporative emissions and prompt clean up of liquid spills, prohibition of intentional on-site fires and avoidance of accidental ones, control of construction equipment emissions and proactive monitoring of dust.
- Air Quality -The air quality impacts associated with construction vehicles and non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) and the proposed mitigation measures, commensurate with the identified risk.
- Noise - Details on hours of construction, deliveries, types of machinery to be used, noise mitigation and details of any monitoring and compliance with relevant standards.
- Vibration - Details on any activities which may results in excessive vibration, e.g. piling, and details of monitoring to be carried out. Locations of monitoring positions should also be provided along with details of standards used for determining the acceptability of any vibration undertaken. In the event that excess vibration occurs then details should be provided on mitigation.
- Lighting - Details on artificial lighting and measures which will be used to minimise impact, such as restrictions in hours of operation, the location and angling of lighting.
Reason: To ensure before development commences that construction methods will safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy ENV2 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan (2018).
6 The buildings and area referred to as Parcel Square (or any part or parts thereof) as indicated on drawing LBC.YRK.008 Rev B 'Parcel Square Floor Plan - Demolitions/Alterations' shall not be demolished before planning permission for redevelopment is granted and a legally binding contract for the carrying out and completion of the works of redevelopment of the site for which planning permission is granted has been entered into and evidence of the contract has been produced to and approved 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 approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the premature demolition of the buildings does not take place to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
7 A programme of post-determination archaeological mitigation, specifically an archaeological watching brief and excavation is required on this site. The archaeological scheme comprises 3 stages of work. Each stage shall be completed and approved by the Local Planning Authority before it can be discharged.
A) No grubbing up of foundations or other ground disturbing work shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI, no groundworks shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI. The WSI should conform to standards set by LPA and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.
B) The site investigation and post-investigation assessment shall be completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A) and the provision made for community engagement, analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition (physical and digital) will be secured. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI.
C) A copy of a report (and evidence of preparation of a form of publication) shall be deposited with City of York Historic Environment Record to allow public dissemination of results within 3 months of completion or such other period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The site lies within an Area of Archaeological Importance and the development may affect important archaeological deposits which must be recorded prior to destruction in order to comply with Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
8 A programme of archaeological building recording, specifically a written description and photographic recording of the buildings scheduled to be demolished (Parcel Square buildings, York Railway Institute Gymnasium and York Railway Institute Band room) to Historic England Level of Recording 1 is required for this development.
The archaeological scheme comprises 3 stages of work. Each stage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before it can be discharged.
A) No demolition shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The WSI should conform to standards set by CYC and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.
B) The programme of recording and post-investigation assessment shall be completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A) and the provision made for analysis and dissemination of results and digital archive deposition with ADS will be secured. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI.
C) A copy of a report shall be deposited with City of York Historic Environment Record and selection of digital archive images with ADS to allow public dissemination of results within 3 months of completion or such other period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The buildings on this site are of archaeological interest and must be recorded prior to demolition to enhance our understanding of heritage assets, in accordance with paragraph 197 and 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
9 Notwithstanding the details required under Condition 3 as part of the Phasing Strategy, a three stage road safety audit carried out in line with advice set out in GG119 Road safety audit (formerly HD 19/15), and guidance issued by the council, will be required for retained vehicular access to 14 Queen Street. Reports for Stages 1 and 2 must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to works commencing on site. The Stage 3 report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to occupation. After each Stage of Road Safety Audit, the approved measures shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To minimise the road safety risks associated with the changes imposed by the development.
10 Prior to the first use of the Multi Storey Car Par (MSCP), a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for street lighting, CCTV and automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) measures to provide coverage for the internal and external areas, where necessary, of the Multi Storey Car Park. The measures approved in the scheme shall be installed and operational prior to the Multi Storey Car Park being brought into first use and shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate security measures are in place to create a safe environment for all users of the MSCP by reducing the opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour in accordance with Policy D1 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan and Paragraphs 91(b) and 127(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework.
11 Prior to the development commencing full detailed drawings showing the design and materials for roads, footways, and other highway areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such roads, footways and other highway areas shall be constructed in accordance with such approved plans prior to the use of any building which requires access from or along that road, footway or highway.
Note: The applicant is advised to consult with DfT guidance LTN1/20 in respect to updating cycle infrastructure.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel and prevent significant impacts on the highway network in accordance with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
12 Prior to the commencement of works at Tea Room Square as agreed as part of the Phasing Strategy, the following highway works (which definition shall include works associated with any Traffic Regulation Order required as a result of the development, signing, lighting, drainage and other related works) shall have been carried out in accordance with details which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, or arrangements entered into which ensure the same.
* Goods serving and loading to be limited to evenings and night time periods only at Tea Room Square
Reason: In the interests of highway safety to allow Tea Room Square to be pedestrianised during the day to accord with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy T3 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan..
13 Prior to the loss of any operational car parking spaces associated with York Railway Station, a parking strategy shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include details of the phasing of the provision of all existing, any temporary, and proposed short and long stay public car parking. Additionally it shall include the management tools that may be implemented including but not limited to train operating companies' communications, signage and variable message sign (VMS) to warn users of limited capacity at the station in advance of travel and to direct them to other car parks and/or modes of travel. The approved parking strategy shall be implemented in accordance with its terms.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel and prevent significant impacts on the highway network in accordance with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
14 In accordance with the timeframe as set out in the Phasing Strategy, details of the access route to the motor cycle parking shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel and prevent significant impacts on the highway network in accordance with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
15 At any point the access gate positioned in the archway of 14 Queen Street is removed, it shall be replaced within two months with an electronically operated gate and shall be hung so that it opens inwards. Prior to removal of the existing access gate, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the specification of the replacement gate, its position and design (including materials and finish) and the management, maintenance and servicing arrangements in relation to the gate for a minimum period of 10 years. The works shall be carried out as approved and thereafter retained in accordance with the provisions of the approved scheme.
Reason: To prevent obstruction on the highway network and so that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the finished appearance of the gate in view of its sensitive location within this part of the conservation area and to comply with paragraphs 108 and 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework as well as Policies D1 and D4 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan (2018).
16 If the new loop road around the RI gymnasium building to serve the multi storey car park is not adopted under condition 11, a parking management strategy setting out the measures the Station Manager shall adopt when enforcing parking restrictions on this road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first use of the loop road. The enforcement of parking restrictions on this road shall remain in place for the lifetime of the road unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The loop road is critical to the bus network, and these measures will ensure that buses and other road users can move freely through the development, in order to prevent significant impacts on the highway network in accordance with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
17 Prior to the commencement of any phase, sub phase or building of the development (including demolition), an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) for the relevant phase sub phase or building regarding protection measures for the existing trees shown to be retained on the approved drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development for that phase sub phase or building shall be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS.
This statement shall include details and locations of protective fencing, ground protection, a schedule of tree works if applicable, site rules and prohibitions, phasing of works, site access during demolition/construction, types of construction machinery/vehicles to be used (including delivery and collection lorries and arrangements for loading/off-loading), parking arrangements for site vehicles, locations for stored materials and means of moving materials around the site, locations and means of installing utilities, location of site compound and marketing suite. The document shall also include methodology and construction details and existing and proposed levels where a change in surface material and boundary treatments is proposed within the root protection area of existing trees. A copy of the document will be available for reference and inspection on site at all times.
Reason: To prevent damage to trees during construction works, in accordance with Policy GI4 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan.
18 No development other than enabling works of each phase, sub-phase or building shall commence until a detailed scheme of landscaping to serve that phase, sub-phase or building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development for that phase, sub phase or building shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
The details of landscaping shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
- the species, stock size, density (spacing), and position of trees, shrubs and other plants; seeding mix, sowing rate and mowing regimes (where applicable)
- details of ground preparation
- Where trees are to be located within paved areas, the planting details shall accommodate suitable soil volumes underneath porous surfacing so that the trees have the capacity to survive and thrive
- Details shall include a proposed tree planting plan showing:
- locations, stock size, and species of each tree
- areas of underground soil cells, and volume of soil/growing medium per tree
- surface finish
- existing utility runs to be retained and proposed utility runs
- Cross sections for each tree pit/trench type to include:
- construction details and product specifications, including the corresponding paving construction detail
- means of support, and means of watering.
- locations of utilities and means of accommodating compatibility between utilities and trees where applicable.
Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the substantial completion of the planting and development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees alternatives in writing.
Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the variety, suitability and disposition of species within the entire site, since the landscape scheme is integral to the amenity of the development.
19 Prior to the commencement of each phase, sub-phase or building, details and samples of external materials to be used for each main new building or the alteration to any existing building within the relevant phase or sub-phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include the following buildings and works:
i. the multi storey car park
ii. new elevations to the York Railway Institute Gymnasium
iii. railings to the front elevation of No's 11-20 Queen Street
iv. Juliet balcony to No. 22 Queen Street (York RI)
v. Parcel Square infill and new roof canopy
vi. the sub-station to serve York Railway Station
Where brickwork is proposed sample panels of the brickwork to be used shall be erected on the site measuring 1.1m x 0.8m and shall illustrate the colour, texture and bonding of brickwork and the mortar treatment to be used, and shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of building works above foundation level. The panel(s) shall be retained until a minimum of 2 square metres of wall of the approved development has been completed in accordance with the approved sample.
For the Parcel Square infill and canopy, 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
- railing design and finish
The development for that phase sub phase or building 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 safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area and individual buildings in accordance with Policies D4 and D1 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan and Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
20 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.
21 The multi storey car park hereby approved shall be constructed to a CEEQUAL standard of at least 'Very Good'. A formal Post Construction assessment by a licensed CEEQUAL assessor shall be carried out and a copy of the certificate shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 12 months of first use of the building (unless otherwise agreed in writing). Should the development fail to achieve a 'Very Good" CEEQUAL rating,a report demonstrating what remedial measures shall be undertaken to achieve a 'Very Good' rating shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within six months of the date of the assessment for approval in writing. The remedial measures shall then be undertaken as approved within a timescale to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To fulfil the environmental objectives of the NPPF and support the transition to a low carbon future, and in accordance with policies CC1 and CC2 of the 2018 Draft Plan.
22 Prior to first use of the Multi Storey Car Park (MSCP), 32 Electric Vehicle Recharging Points shall be provided in a position and to a specification to be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained. Charging points shall be located in a prominent position on the site and shall be for the exclusive use of electric vehicles. In addition, a minimum of 32 additional parking bays shall be identified for the future installation of additional Electric Vehicle Charging Points. Such additional bays shall be provided with all necessary ducting, cabling and groundwork to facilitate the addition of Electric Vehicle Charge Points in the future. The locations of these additional bays shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
At least one supplementary publically-accessible 'rapid charger' shall be provided somewhere within the application site boundary at a location and to a specification to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained.
Prior to the first use of the MSCP, the applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing (such approval not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) an Electric Vehicle Recharging Point Management Plan that will detail the management, maintenance, servicing and access arrangements for all Electric Vehicle Recharging Points for a minimum period of 10 years. The Electric Vehicle Recharging Point Management Plan shall be implemented once approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To promote and facilitate the uptake of electric vehicles on the site in line with the Council's Low Emission Strategy (LES) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Notes:
'Fast' Electric Vehicle Charging Points should incorporate a suitably rated 32A 'IEC 62196' electrical sockets to allow 'Mode 3' charging of electric vehicles.
The specification of 'Rapid' Electric Vehicle Charging Points should be agreed with City of York Council
Charging points should be located in a prominent position on the site and should be for the exclusive use of electric vehicles. Parking bay marking and signage should reflect this.
All electrical circuits/installations shall comply with the electrical requirements in force at the time of installation.
23 Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, and prior to the construction of the multi storey car park above foundation level, scaled plans and elevations to show the position of all photovoltaics (PV) to serve the multi storey car park as detailed in the Energy Statement dated 13 November 2020 (Ref: MSCP-ARUP-ZZ-ZZ-RP-0001 (Job Number 257903-00)) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To fulfil the environmental objectives of the NPPF and support the transition to a low carbon future, and in accordance with policies CC1 and CC2 of the 2018 Draft Plan.
24 Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, and prior to the construction of the multi storey car park above foundation level, scaled sectional details (1:10) through the external wall shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the finished appearance of the MSCP in view of its sensitive location adjacent to the conservation area and to comply with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework as well as Policy D1 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan (2018).
25 Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, and prior to the demolition of the extension to the rear of the Railway Institute band room, scaled sectional details (1:10) through the external wall shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the finished appearance of this building in view of its sensitive location within the conservation area and to comply with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework as well as Policies D1 and D4 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan (2018).
26 In accordance with the timeframe as set out within the phasing strategy, prior to the demolition of the York railway Institute band room, a scheme securing its replacement for at least 15 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The replacement facilities shall be equivalent in capacity and quality of the existing band room and this shall be detailed within the strategy. The replacement facilities shall be made available for occupation in accordance with the approved strategy prior to the demolition of the existing band room.
Reason: In order to provide replacement community facilities in line with paragraph 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy HW1 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan (2018).
27 The demolition of the York Railway Institute Band Room shall be carried out in accordance with the Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement (RAMMS) Bats produced by Arup and dated November 2020 (document ref: 257903).
Reason: To ensure protection of a European Protected Species and to accord with Section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
28 If demolition of the York RI Band Room hereby approved does not commence within 1 year from the date of planning consent, updated bat surveys shall be undertaken to establish if there has been any changes in presence/absence of bats and identify new or revised avoidance and mitigation measures. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the demolition of the structure in question.
Reason: To ensure baseline ecological information and any associated mitigation is up to date and relevant, particularly where there might have been changes in the distribution or abundance of a mobile species on site.
29 The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.
Reason: In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.
30 There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the three separate development areas, identified as the short stay surface car park, temporary car park following demolition of Unipart building and the multi storey car park, prior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to:-
a) evidence to demonstrate that surface water disposal via infiltration or watercourse are not reasonably practical;
b) evidence of existing positive drainage to public sewer and the current points of connection; and
c) the means of restricting the discharge to public sewer to the existing rate less a minimum 30% reduction, based on the existing peak discharge rate during a 1 in 1 year storm event. Storage volume calculations should include an additional 30% allowance for climate change.
Reason: To ensure that no surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for its disposal and in the interest of sustainable drainage.
31 No construction in the relevant area (s) of the site shall commence until evidence has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority that the diversion or closure of the 300mm public foul sewer located within the site has been agreed with the relevant statutory sewerage undertaker and that prior to construction in the affected area, the approved works have been undertaken.
Reason: In order to allow sufficient access to the public sewerage for maintenance and repair work at all times.
32 Prior to any intrusive groundworks, the means of protecting the public water supply apparatus located within the site boundary shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Investigative works may be required to assess how deep the private supply from the meters to the buildings will be. No building or other obstruction including landscape features (including trees) shall be located over or within 5 metres either side of the centre line of the water supply apparatus.
Reason: In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times.
33 No development shall take place until an additional investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken to assess the nature and extent of any land contamination on the application site. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. No development shall take place until the report of the findings has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:
(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination (including ground gases where appropriate);
(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
human health,
o property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops,
livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,
o adjoining land,
o groundwaters and surface waters,
o ecological systems,
o archaeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the
preferred option(s).
This investigation and risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
34 Prior to any works starting on site, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use (by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
35 Prior to first occupation or use, the approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms and a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems.
36 In the event that unexpected contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is first brought into use.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
37 The replacement cycle parking within York Railway Station shall be provided at the same level (number of spaces) as currently provided.
Informative: A range of cycle racks/storage areas including a mix of Sheffield Stands (including wider spaces for adapted bikes) and two tier racks should be provided.
Reason: In order to encourage and promote cycling within this highly sustainable location and transport interchange to accord with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy T3 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan.
8.0 INFORMATIVES:
Notes to Applicant
1. In considering the application, the Local Planning Authority has implemented the requirements set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 38) in seeking solutions to problems identified during the processing of the application. The Local Planning Authority took the following steps in order to achieve a positive outcome:
- carried out wide ranging consultation
- secured amendments to address concerns raised
- agreed a suite of conditions to control development
2. There are public sewers crossing the sites, with various easement requirements, as established by Yorkshire Water. The developer(s) should note these requirements and legislation within the Water Industry Act if there is intent to divert any sewers.
3. You are advised that this proposal may have an affect on Statutory Undertakers equipment. You must contact all the utilities to ascertain the location of the equipment and any requirements they might have prior to works commencing.
4. It is recommended that the services of a landscape architect are employed to produce a landscape scheme and to oversee the corresponding works on site, to ensure that the ground preparation and planting are carried out to a satisfactory standard and are in strict accordance with the approved drawings and specifications.
5. It is recommended that consultation should be undertaken with the Designing out Crime Officer at North Yorkshire Police and the Counter Terrorism Security Advisor in respect to all security and counter terrorism measures across the development.
6. You are advised that Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) is required from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) before any work can be carried out which might affect a monument either above or below ground level.
Contact details:
Case Officer: Lindsay Jenkins
Tel No: 01904 554575