Date:		Ward:	Holgate
Team:	West Area	Parish:	Holgate Planning Panel

Reference:         21/02793/REMM

Application at:   Railway Museum Leeman Road York 

For:                     Reserved matters application for layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access for the construction of Central Hall (F1 use class) including entrance hall, exhibition space and café with associated access, parking, landscaping and external works following the demolition of the mess room and other structures pursuant to 18/01884/OUTM

By:                       Board of Trustees of The Science Museum

Application Type:       Major Reserved Matters Application

Target Date:       31 March 2022 (Extension of Time 11.07.2022)

Recommendation: Approve

0       INTRODUCTION

0.1    This application was deferred at Planning Committee on 7 July 2022 as members requested further information with respect to an Equalities Impact Assessment. 

0.2    Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 contains the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) which requires public authorities, when exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to:

a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act;

b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

0.3    Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to:

a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;

b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. 

0.4    The PSED does not specify a particular substantive outcome, but ensures that the decision made has been taken with “due regard” to its equality implications.

0.5    Officers have given due regard to the equality implications of the proposals in making its recommendation, however this has now been documented in an Equalities Impact Assessment.  This assessment, which pulls together information contained within the submission documents of the application, is attached at Appendix 1 for Members’ information. 

0.6    Members are also updated with respect to the latest comments which were received from North Yorkshire Police:

It is pleasing to note that the northern pedestrian route is now part of the access road and that it will be illuminated for the majority of its length by column lights. It is considered that this arrangement provides fewer opportunities for crime and generally increases safety. 

0.7    Members are also updated with respect to comments received from York Civic Trust which were included in the Committee Update of 7 July 2022 and are summarised as follows:

York Civic Trust is supportive of the principle of Central Hall as a connection between the two exhibition halls and a solution to the identified issues of access and connectivity across the museum.

There is opportunity to revise the scheme in both internal layout and size and scale of the central drum which otherwise limit the ambition of the building and its potential to become a large statement building.

Current design offers unacceptably poor through access from Leeman Road/Salisbury Road and fails neighbouring communities.

Impact of the central drum will be a defining feature and landmark for both the NRM and wider York Central. As the eventual gateway to York Central from the railway station it will be in a highly prominent position and needs to aspire to become a York icon with a lasting contribution to the skyline.  Enlargement of size and scale of the drum would help realise this.

0.8    These comments are noted by Officers, matters relating to access, layout and design are covered within the Committee Report at paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9 and 5.72, 5.74 and 5.75. 

0.09  Members are also reminded of the comments by the Applicant included in the Committee update of 7 July 2022 with respect to the route through the Museum site as follows: 

With respect to concerns raised regarding accessibility by Class 3 mobility wheelchairs the following comments have been received from the NRM:

The National Railway Museum have confirmed that it will not differentiate between different classes of wheelchair and so Class 3 wheelchair users will be able to make use of the Walkway Route, including the passage through Central Hall.

When using the Walkway Route, or travelling inside the museum, Class 3 wheelchair users will need to moderate the speed at which they operate the devices to 4 mph or less. This is for the safety of all users of the route and is understood to be in line with DfT guidance for the operation of Class 3 wheelchairs in pedestrian areas.

As it stands, the Walkway Agreement does not prohibit the use of route by Class 3 wheelchair users.  If however, the Council thought it necessary to include some additional wording to clarify the above position then NRM would be happy to incorporate this.

These comments have been made to provide clarity, however relate to the Walkway Agreement rather than the reserved matters for consideration. 

0.10  The original Committee Report is presented below:

1.0  PROPOSAL

1.1 The proposal relates to a reserved matters application for the construction of a Central Hall at the National Railway Museum (NRM), including entrance hall, exhibition space and café with associated access, parking, landscaping and external works following the demolition of the former mess room and other structures. The application seeks consent for layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access.

1.2 This application follows outline approval 18/01884/OUTM for the redevelopment of York Central 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.

1.3 The reserved matters application site relates to Development Zone G and more specifically Character Zone 13 (Museum) as set out in the York Central Approved Parameter Plans and Design Guide. 

1.4 The application proposes demolition of the existing entrance and lean to building, the former mess room which is a later extension to the Bullnose building, the underpass between Station Hall and Great Hall and associated plant, service and temporary buildings adjacent to Great Hall and the removal of existing portacabins adjacent to the Learning Platform building.

1.5 Following demolition, the construction of Central Hall will provide a new 3542sqm entrance building with associated visitor facilities to include exhibition gallery space, a new shop and café.  The new building will comprise a central drum set over two stories which will sit higher than the existing buildings to be demolished and will comprise an internal viewing balcony at first floor level.  The central drum would step down to a new ‘futures gallery’ to the west connecting it to Station Hall and a new café and shop to the north east which would connect through to the Great Hall.  The new buildings will provide level access throughout and will unify the buildings on the existing NRM complex. 

1.6    It is proposed that the main entrance will be located on the southern side of the building from Museum Square which is being developed as a later phase of York Central to be delivered by Homes England/Network Rail.  The north eastern side of the building will provide a secondary entrance leading from Leeman Road.  

1.7 Associated landscape improvements will be provided to the north eastern part of the site and will accommodate a service road, 14 accessible disabled car parking spaces and a pedestrian route including both stepped and ramped accesses set within a new soft landscaped space.

1.8    The proposed Central Hall is proposed to unite the National Railway Museum estate, becoming the main cultural focus for the wider York Central development and is described as the cornerstone of the Museum’s ‘Vision 2025’.  ‘Vision 2025’ is a wider masterplan for the Museum involving a number of elements aside from Central Hall, the key components being South Yard, intended as an active public realm including events and play spaces and Wonderlab a new interactive gallery to be located in North Shed.  These elements will be brought forward under future applications. 

1.9 It is intended that the application proposals would increase visitor numbers to the museum from 750,000 to 1 million visitors per annum.  The application suggests that the proposals could generate an additional 35 staff and opportunities for up to 150 additional volunteers/casual staff. 

1.10 A listed building consent application for demolition of those buildings attached to existing listed buildings accompanies this application and is referenced 22/00156/LBC.  This application is pending determination.

1.11 The outline planning application for York Central required an Environmental Statement as well as a number of detailed technical assessments which set out the anticipated environmental impacts arising from the development of York Central including the Museum site.  An Environmental Compliance Statement is submitted as part of the Planning Statement submitted for this reserved matters application to demonstrate that the proposals would not result in any new or material environmental impacts from those identified and approved at outline stage and as such any mitigation measures outlined still remain relevant.  In addition, it is confirmed that the proposals fall within the design parameters set out within the Design Guide and Parameter Plans approved at outline stage.  Of particular note is the confirmation that the floor area of the proposed building has reduced significantly since that envisaged at outline stage.  In addition the proposals sit within the limits of deviation in respect of access and circulation routes and with respect to proposals being within the maximum building heights.   

APPLICATION SITE

1.12  The application site forms part of the National Railway Museum complex which sits astride Leeman Road with the main museum buildings (the Great Hall and Station Hall) linked by private underpass beneath Leeman Road.  The site lies to the west of the City centre and York Railway Station.  The site currently comprises a number of existing museum buildings including a number of Grade II listed buildings comprising Station Hall, Peter Allan Building, Bullnose Building, Weighbridge, Gate Piers and Gates to the former York Goods Station which will remain in situ.  The site falls outside of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area which is located to the east and includes the city walls - a scheduled monument.

1.13  The modern housing development of St Peter’s Quarter, off Leeman Road sits beyond the west of the site and comprises three and four-storey town houses and apartment blocks.

1.14  Leeman Road runs through the Museum site which currently provides vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access for existing residents into York City Centre. 

BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

1.15  The redevelopment of York Central within which the NRM application sits has been in discussion for decades following the decline of the rail industry.  Complexities of land ownership had prevented a comprehensive redevelopment scheme coming forward at an earlier stage. 

1.16  In 2019 outline planning approval (18/01884/OUTM) was granted for redevelopment of the site 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.

1.17  The outline approval was submitted with an Environmental Statement and was subject to 83 conditions together with a Section 106 agreement.  The highway and transport impacts arising from the development were assessed in a series of detailed Transport Assessments including traffic modelling.  These were undertaken on the basis that a section of Leeman Road would be stopped up for traffic with a potential pedestrian connection which ‘could be through a building’ along the former Leeman Road (Outline Parameter Plan YC-PP-006). 

1.18  The first of the reserved matters applications under reference 20/00710/REMM was granted in November 2020.  That application sought consent for layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access for the construction of the primary vehicle, pedestrian and cycle routes and included associated landscaping and alterations to the existing road network pursuant to outline planning permission 18/01884/OUTM.  This consent secured the new vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes through York Central which include alternative routes to Leeman Road as referred to in Condition 45 of the outline consent.

1.19 As a separate process, under the Highways Act 1980, the Applicants sought a Stopping Up Order (SUO) in order to permanently remove highway rights from a 220m section of Leeman Road.   Homes England and Network Rail were granted a Stopping Up Order by the Department for Transport which came into effect on 6 October 2021 and is subject to a series of stipulations which must be complied with.  The SUO enables a section of Leeman Road to be removed as public highway and will come into operation once the Local Highway Authority is satisfied that the conditions of the Order have been met. Prior to the stopping up coming into force, alternative vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes must be available around the stopped up length of Leeman Road.

1.20  In line with the outline consent, in addition to the new and improved public highway routes consented under 20/00710/REMM, pedestrians will also be able to pass through the Railway Museum during museum opening hours.  The detail of the layout of the site and access is subject to this reserved matters application, however the detailed arrangements for the operation of the route through the museum are subject to a Walkway Agreement under Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980.  The purpose of a Walkway Agreement being to dedicate footways in, through or under parts of a building for use as a footpath.  The Walkway Agreement was approved on 27 April 2021 during the Stopping Up Public Inquiry.

1.21  The existing Walkway Plan accompanying the Walkway Agreement shows a different alignment to that shown on this reserved matters application and as such the Walkway Plan will need amending so that it aligns with the reserved matters plans.  In addition Condition 45 will need to be subsequently discharged, this being the mechanism by which the Council are able to control details (for example alignment, width, gradient and surfacing) of the pedestrian access through Central Hall. 

1.22  A number of pre-commencement conditions pertaining to the outline consent and reserved matters application for the infrastructure works have already been discharged and a series of additional applications are anticipated over the coming months.  The discharge of these conditions will enable lawful commencement of the infrastructure works and alternative pedestrian and cycle routes through York Central to commence later this summer. 

1.23  A number of other planning consents for improvements to the museum, which tie into the wider regeneration of the site, have recently been consented, the most relevant are as follows:

· 21/02544/FUL Erection of single storey workshop with associated external works Granted 13.01.2022

· 21/02484/FUL Works to southern elevation of North Shed to include removal of loading crane from service yard, removal of folding doors and infilling with metal cladding and glazing, installation of 2no. mechanical grilles, replacement of roller shutter door with solid double doors and formation of new doorway Granted 05.01.2022.

· 21/02379/FUL Replacement of roofing at Station Hall including rooflights, re-opening four western rail access arches and two southern arches with installation of glazed screens and removing modern baffle walls Granted 21.12.2021

· 21/01882/FUL Replacement of existing roof covering at Learning Platform building Granted 04.10.2021

PRE-APPLICATION ENGAGEMENT BY APPLICANT

1.24  The Applicants have submitted a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which sets out in detail the community engagement that has been undertaken prior to the reserved matters submission. 

1.25  In summary, the engagement involved contacting key stakeholders and politicians, making local community groups aware of the consultation, a leaflet drop to 7,000 local residents and media publicity providing details of a public exhibition and consultation website together with contact details for queries.  An exhibition was held at the National Railway Museum from Monday 25 October 2021 to 3 November 2021 with feedback being obtained online through a dedicated consultation webpage.  There were 93 responses and these are summarised in the SCI. 

1.26  As well as the engagement with the local community and key stakeholders the Applicants had various pre-application meetings including discussions with Planning, Conservation and Highways on the lead up to the submission of this application. 

2.0  POLICY CONTEXT

2.1    National Planning Policy

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in 2021 and its planning policies are material to the determination of planning applications.

2.2    Development Plan

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that determinations be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

2.3    The Publication Draft City of York Local Plan 2018 (the emerging 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 with further hearings held in May 2022. 

2.4    The key policies relevant to the proposals are:

DP1 – York Sub Area

DP2 – Sustainable Development

DP3 – Sustainable Communities

DP4 – Approach to Development Management

D1 – Placemaking

D2 – Landscape and Setting

D5 – Listed Buildings

D6 – Archaeology

D7 – The Significance of Non-designated Heritage Assets

D10 – York City Walls

GI2 - Biodiversity

GI4 – Trees and Hedgerows

CC1 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

CC2 – Sustainable Design and Construction of New Development

ENV1 – Air Quality

ENV2 – Managing Environmental Quality

ENV3 – Land Contamination

ENV4 – Flood Risk

ENV5 – Sustainable Drainage

WM1 – Sustainable Waste Management

T1 – Sustainable Access

T7 – Minimising and Accommodating Generated Trips

T8 – Demand Management

2.5    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 considered through the Local Plan Examination process).

SS4 - York Central

2.6    Evidence Base

The evidence base underpinning the emerging plan is also capable of being a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

2.7    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 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 2021, although the weight that can be afforded to them is very limited.

2.8    In terms of site constraints then the following apply:

· The wider site has been designated as a Housing Zone and has also been awarded Enterprise Zone status.

· The site is located in an Area of Archaeological Interest.

· The site contains a number of Grade II Listed buildings including Station Hall, Peter Allan Building, Learning Platform Building (curtilage listed), Bullnose Building, weighbridge, Gatepiers and Gates to former York Goods Station.

3.0  CONSULTATIONS

Internal

3.1    Policy

The policy position has been approved and this application does not seek to challenge the principles or position therefore there is no objection.

3.2    Highways Development Control (HDC)

Walkway route

The application proposes a new alignment for the walkway agreement route through the Museum.  This alignment is more direct than the previous proposal and generally considered suitable for users in terms of width and gradient (including the ramp option) and is considered to be compliant with the Walkways Agreement design requirements but the plan attached to the agreement will need to be changed to match the RMA layout. 

HDC previously raised the issue of people wanting to walk through the museum having to join queues of visitors. The number of people walking through the museum at peak visiting times (10am to 11am) are estimated at between 20 to 30.  HDC remain opposed to this approach as this is against the spirit of the outline application and Walkway Agreement which should provide free passage through the Museum during opening hours for those who are simply travelling through the area and not visiting the museum. The walkway route is required to provide a direct route through the site and suggesting people travel around the site if there are queues goes against the objectives of the Walkway Agreement and the outline consent. As previously requested, a separate entrance/check point should be provided to ensure they do not have to queue.

There is also need for closure notification signs at the east approach to minimise abortive walking distance for non-visitors.  The location for signs at the west gates have been included but not at the east approach.

Cycle Parking

Staff cycle parking and visitor parking provision is acceptable in principle but a summary showing total numbers of spaces and how many stands/spaces are provided for staff adjacent to the security entrance should be conditioned.

Car Parking

General car parking will rely on car parking provision on the wider site (multi storey and temporary car park). According to the Transport Assessment 184 visitor parking spaces and approximately 70 staff car parking spaces will be removed with car users expected to switch mode or use multi storey car parks on site.  Condition 12 of the OPA requires a detailed phasing strategy for car parking, before the commencement of any development.  We will therefore rely on this condition to ensure that adequate parking is available for the Museum at all times.  Through this condition, we will need to continue to consider the risk of increase in car parking from NRM visitors and staff in adjacent streets which are not currently covered by ResPark.

Train drop off and bus layby

The proposed development relies on the provision of the train drop off layby and bus layby as well as access for deliveries which are not within the red line and depend on the implementation of 20/00710/REMM.  The provision of these facilities need to be completed before the proposed development is occupied.  The applicant notes that “these works fall under the RMA for the proposed infrastructure, which needs to have been completed prior to the closure of Leeman Road. As such there is already an appropriate mechanism in place and no further conditions are required.”

The Leeman Road closure does not require all the works in the York Central Highway Infrastructure RMA to be completed for Leeman Rd to be stopped up. HDC consider that the train drop off layby must be in place prior to the NRM opening so would require this to be conditioned.

Travel Plan and Transport Assessment

HDC note the updated Travel Plan and Transport Assessment and have no further comments.

Construction Management

Note that a Construction Management Plan is part of Condition 15 of the outline consent and would need discharging prior to commencement. 

3.3    Economic Development Unit

The NRM has been an integral part of York’s heritage and a major asset to the City’s cultural offer since 1975. Not only is the site a museum and major tourist attraction, it also houses rare collections of rolling stock, artefacts and ephemera spanning 200 years of railway history, cementing York’s status as an important ‘Railway City’.

Over the last 47 years the venue has attracted 33 million visitors from across the world. This is 750,000 visitors per annum, 17% of whom live locally. The application proposes a very large extension to the existing museum infrastructure, offering a new visitor ‘welcome’ space, an exhibition space – the Futures Gallery, café and the main Central Hall. Offering state of the art facilities will inevitably increase footfall, projected to be 1 million visitors per year, all of whom will be visiting the city for one day, many for longer, boosting the local economy particularly the hospitality and cultural sectors.

Inevitably the increase in building size and variety of specialist areas will create new jobs as well as securing the long-term future for people already employed by the Museum.

The educational benefits of the NRM are noteworthy, actively encouraging interest in STEM subjects and the proposed Wonderlab will allow children aged between 7 and 14 to participate in engineering workshops, helping nurture future generations of talent some of whom will be of key benefit to burgeoning sectors already established in York.

The NRM is also integral to the development of York Central, complementing and enhancing the unique qualities of the project.

Given the economic significance provided by this proposed expansion we support this application.

3.4    Lead Local Flood Authority

No objection in principle on the basis that our interests are covered by conditions imposed on the outline planning permission (18/01884/OUTM) Advise that it is ensured that details submitted at reserved matters stage would not prejudice the developer’s ability to meet the requirements of those conditions.

3.5    Urban Design and Conservation

Original Comments

Are generally supportive of the proposals and consider the design of the new buildings to be of the highest quality. The scale, massing and design all make a positive contribution to most of the site’s heritage assets. There are concerns about treatment of the bullnose building. The application needs to provide justification for the demolition of the mess building which is an acknowledged non-designated heritage asset of some architectural interest, historic interest and contributes to group value of the railway complex. 

Latest Comments

The proposal scheme results in the total loss of significance of the mess room, a non-designated heritage asset. The Applicants acknowledge this would result in harm to the setting and significance of the grade II listed Bullnose Building. Whilst of a later date, the mess room visually and as a component of the inter-related functions of the buildings, contributes to the setting of the group of the designated heritage assets.

The design document suggests that the removal of the building is required to better reveal the new entrance frontage and link two public spaces which will be created as part of the scheme.  However the impact on the frontage is limited in wider views of the site, and visitors would in any case be drawn by the prominent new central drum. Whilst demolition would allow the creation of a single larger public space, it would result in the bullnose building appearing isolated, diminishing its group value and that of the bullnose building and the buildings within which it forms a group, and the total loss of significance of the non-designated heritage asset. Conservation Officer’s opinion is that this is insufficient justification for the loss of significance.

3.6    Public Health

          No response received.

3.7    Trees and Landscape

Original Comments

There needs to be a review of the hard surfacing along the length of the old Leeman Road, in order to play down the black asphalt and its old form and function and to integrate the street better with the pedestrian use and give a greater sense of celebratory arrival.  The soft landscaping principles are fine but there needs to be a greater number and variety of tree species, including some large species, to reflect the scale of the overall development. 

Latest Comments

The amended landscaping plan looks fine and seems to be as discussed at the meeting with the Applicants.  If all the disabled parking bays are required then what is now proposed is satisfactory and the planting detail is accepted.

3.8    Ecology

Low level lighting has been designed alongside soft landscaping which should limit impacts on light sensitive species, by ensuring foraging and commuting habitat is available for such species.  It would be useful if a contour plan could be provided to show light levels and light spill which can then be reviewed to ensure existing and proposed green areas and corridor will provide suitable habitat for nocturnal species. 

With respect to removal of hedgerows, trees, shrubs and demolition of buildings or structures, where habitat is to be lost during the nesting bird period, checking surveys are required by an ecologist. 

An updated Ecological Appraisal has been provided and has not raised any further concerns.  The report is in line with current guidance and is considered appropriate. 

With respect to invasive species, whilst there are no invasive species on site, staff should be made aware that there are invasive species present within the site as a whole so they should remain vigilant. 

The ecological enhancements detailed in the ‘Wold Ecology Outline Condition 30 Compliance Statement’ letter are appropriate. 

Further information is required in relation to the discharge of Condition 31 of the outline consent relating to the landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP).

3.9    Archaeology

Original Comments

The reserved matters application includes the latest version of the Archaeological Remains Management Plan (ARMP) created in relation to the National Railway Museum application.  As the site falls within the wider York Central boundary the ARMP document sits as an appendix to the main York Central ARMP which is currently undergoing a review and update by TetraTec. 

As stated in the document and at pre-application stage an archaeological evaluation is required.  Up to 10 trenches have been suggested, but this will depend on potential impacts of the proposed scheme.  Ahead of the production of the WSI additional data relating to the York Central site now within the HER will need to be consulted.  This includes an updated deposit model report (2020), Phase 1 evaluation assessment and watching brief on GI works 2021. 

The evaluation should be taking place in late February/early March and we will need to see an interim report on the findings of the evaluation before commenting on this scheme further. 

Latest Comments

The first stage of evaluation has been completed, comprising three trenches.  Accessible areas were limited due to live services and use of the Museum and Leeman Road. The evaluation did not reveal any significant archaeological features or deposits. Former railway building foundations were revealed at c1m below ground level on the north side of Leeman Road. Further evaluation can be secured by condition. Mitigation will be necessary in the form of a watching brief with excavation where required across the site. This can be covered in the outline conditions and an additional evaluation condition.

3.10  Public Protection

Agree with the approach to noise and lighting, however request further conditions to control these matters.

In terms of air quality the submitted statement addresses all required areas and Public Protection considers it acceptable. 

3.11  Carbon Reduction Project Officer

The documents provided which relate to Carbon Reduction and Sustainability supply statements of what the development will result in with some reference to how this will be achieved.  The report does not commit to anything at this stage and supplies an inference that their admittedly vague energy and carbon targets for the project will be achieved.  Conditions to be discharged at a later stage will allow us to request and analyse a more accurate breakdown of the energy data and a breakdown of Carbon Emissions Reduction percentage that will be achieved upon completion of the development. 

External

3.12  Holgate Planning Panel

Have objections, we are all concerned about the planned closure of Leeman Road. 

3.13  Conservation Areas Advisory Panel

The Panel were concerned at the restricted access for pedestrians through the Central Hall.  It would appear however as a ‘fait accompli’ having already been approved by the City Council. In terms of Central Hall concern was expressed as to how this would function and whether it could cope with large school parties etc and its effectiveness could depend upon adequate signage and visitor management.  It was suggested that a railway related feature should be located in either the drum or outside in Museum Square.  Development of the former stable block does not form part of the proposals and will be left vacant.  Whilst the Panel appreciated the need for a central common entrance, it was felt that the current proposal was missing the ‘wow’ factor. Perhaps a more prominent glazed structure giving tantalising views of the exhibits would better suit the site.

3.14  Canal and River Trust

No requirement for consultation in this case.

3.15  Environment Agency

No objection in principle to this reserved matters application, on the basis that interests are covered by conditions imposed on the outline planning permission. 

3.16  Historic England

Original Comments

The current application is the first proposal to come forward within the sequence of applications across the York Central site.  The design of the new Central Hall is well considered and has the potential to make an attractive addition to this important group of historic buildings and a clear enhancement to the operation, visibility and status of the National Railway Museum.

The application lacks detail and justification to appropriately understand the impact the proposal has on views, to support the demolition of structures such as the goods station mess room; and provides little detail on the landscape proposals. In addition we wish to reiterate the advice given at the outline application with regard to the archaeological potential of the site.  It is our view that the evaluation should be carried out pre-determination. 

We support the proposals but are concerned by the lack of information in specific areas, particularly archaeology.

Latest comments

Welcome the production of a set of images illustrating how the development would be experienced from the City Walls and main Station platforms and the footbridge and have no observations to make.

A Briefing Note and Mess Room Statement has been produced in support of the loss of the mess room however Historic England are still concerned by the loss of the non-designated heritage asset and consider there is room to creatively adapt this building without detriment of the new Central Hall and associated amenity space. Historic England recommend that a holistic approach to the design of Museum Square is adopted which includes the intended uses for ancillary designated buildings i.e. weigh office, bullnose building and the roles they would play as part of the museum offer.  This would help more consistently define the proposals for the public realm while ensuring the significance of one of the most important and best preserved examples of a goods station is preserved and if possible enhanced.

Historic England are pleased to see the additional documentation in relation to archaeological evaluation of the site and have no further comments to add. 

3.17  Network Rail

No objection in principle to the development. 

3.18  North Yorkshire Police Designing Out Crime Officer

It is noted that the application proposes bollard lighting for the northern pedestrian route.  Bollard lighting should be avoided as it does not project sufficient light at the right height and distorts the available light due to up lighting making it difficult to recognise facial features and can cause increased fear of crime.  It is also susceptible to deliberate or accidental damage.  When one takes into consideration that this route is part of the walkway through the museum it will be important to ensure it feels safe to use it is therefore recommended that lighting columns be used instead of bollards.  Discussions are ongoing with the Regional Counter Terrorism Security Adviser (CTSA) regarding a vehicle dynamics assessment which would inform standards required for bollards and security fencing/gates. 

3.19  York Civic Trust

          No response received.

3.20  Yorkshire Water

Original comments

Yorkshire Water objects to the reserved matters application.  Prior to determination the site layout must be amended to account for the public water supply and sewerage infrastructure crossing it. 

Latest comments

Without the necessary agreements with Yorkshire Water in place regarding the diversion of public assets, Yorkshire Water carry the risk that the apparatus, both clean and waste will not be moved and therefore affected by the layout of the site.  The Yorkshire Water agreements bind the developer financially which is the key factor in approving post agreement. 

3.21  Ainsty Internal Drainage Board

          The Board recommends a drainage condition be attached. 

4.0    REPRESENTATIONS

4.1    There have been a total of 98 letters of objection received from local residents, including a letter from the St Peter’s Quarter Residents Association Ltd, York Central Action, Friends of Leeman Park, York Cycle Campaign, York Disability Rights Forum, York Green Party and IndieGo Delivery.  The comments can be summarised as follows:

Highways

Accessibility through the Museum

· Thousands of residents will no longer have permanently open pedestrian/ cycle access across the Railway Museum to the Railway Station and City Centre as the opening times are currently Wednesday to Sunday 10am to 5pm. Residents need access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

· Access can be closed up to 10 times a year, excludes dogs, dismounted cyclists, some types of mobility aid and allows personal property to be searched it is therefore not a like for like replacement.

· Proposals run counter to assurances given when outline consent was agreed and need to reflect the intent and public understanding of what was being offered which was free access in perpetuity through the Museum.

· There is no strategy for how residents will be differentiated from museum visitors etc and no provisions for public use if the Museum has to close for substantial periods.

· More emphasis should be placed on impact on accessibility for residents rather than enhancing the experience of visitors to the Museum.

Alternative Routes

· Proposal fails to comply with the NPPF which states that priority should be given first to pedestrians and cycle movements both within the scheme and neighbouring areas and address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport.

· York will soon become home to Active Travel England and has the potential to be an exemplar city for active travel, however these plans fall far short of the ambition York needs to demonstrate.

· It fails to meet the requirement for cycle routes to flow and feel direct and logical and to be accessible to everyone from 8 to 80 and beyond as described in the Government Cycle Infrastructure Design Guide LTN1/20.

· The new road will be three times longer, congested and indirect that will encourage use of motor vehicles rather than walking and cycling. 

· The existing riverside walk is not a viable alternative, it is longer, poorly lit, unsafe and often impassable due to flooding. 

· Concerned whether the new road will be built before the old one is closed. 

· The application is devoid of information on the alternative pedestrian routes and their status (i.e whether they will be waiting to be built etc) and whether they will be safe if they are not overlooked by occupied buildings.

· Distance to bus stops will increase making access to public transport difficult.

· Unclear how the proposals fit with the Council’s intentions to develop a Green Infrastructure Strategy for York when it would force thousands of residents to have to use cars, buses or taxis to reach the City Centre.

· Need legal assurance that the riverside route improvements will definitely precede the construction phase of the planning application and suggestions made for how the route could be improved. This should form a condition of approval. 

· The Section 106 payment said to have been secured for improvements to the Riverside path is only due on first occupation of dwellings which are likely to be on one of the last parcels to be developed. 

· Question why the calculation of travel times used a blanket speed of 5km/hr when less active or able-bodied people are not likely to be able to travel that speed.

Walkway Agreement

· A walkway agreement that is acceptable to all residents must be secured as it currently severely impacts disabled people, women with children and the elderly.

· There should be an overpass or some sort of cut through as part of the walkway agreement for both pedestrians and cyclists.

· The provision for the new route is through a Walkway Agreement that is not part of the application, despite being referred to several times.  The two applications should be designed together along with a Management Strategy showing how the museum will apply the agreement.

· Emphasise comments by the Inspector at the Stopping Up Inquiry that the Walkway Agreement has short comings of significant scale.

· The Walkway Agreement needs to be open to consultation in the same manner as the planning application. 

· The Walkway Agreement should include an Equalities Impact Assessment.

· The Walkway Agreement needs to stipulate what the NRM opening hours are otherwise these can change at any time. 

· The draft Walkway Agreement tabled at the SUO Public Inquiry stated usual opening hours as 9.00 until 18.00 daily however they have been now cut by 45% from 63 hours to 35 hours per week.  

Design/Layout

· Implore the Council to make the NRM think again and consider an alternative approach to the layout/arrangements for access.

· The idea that the only way to design the NRM requirements can be met via the closure of the road to pedestrians shows a lack of imagination and wilful refusal to consider other options. 

· The NRM is already connected underground, why is it that this cannot be expanded.

· The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam demonstrates a way of how access could be achieved with imagination and good will the NRM can achieve this too. 

· There is an opportunity to use the space for social and cultural activity as well as providing a link to the new Museum Square. 

· The NRM in its design competition did not ask architects to consider alternative designs to incorporate a public right of way for pedestrians and cyclists.

· The NRM states its intention for the NRM to be carbon neutral, or at least to ‘move towards’ carbon neutrality by 2033, this is meaningless as any reduction, however small represents a ‘move towards’. 

· The design of Central Hall is underwhelming.

Air Quality

· Impacts on air quality given travelling will be longer.

· The proposals also reduce CYCs chances of achieving its target of net zero carbon emissions by 2030.

Residential Amenity

· There will already be a lot of noise and disruption for years to come, while the site is being built out, shutting of the road to build another building will add to this.

Impact on Local Business/Economy

· Money would be better spent elsewhere in the City.

· Stated economic benefits of the development are uncertain and largely unmeasurable.

· Impacts on delivery companies who use cycling to deliver.

Publicity

· Communication with local residents throughout the entire York Central process has been almost entirely one way, with Applicants informing residents what is going to happen rather than being receptive to change.

· No changes are cited in the Statement of Community Involvement as evidence of concessions made.

· Requests for meetings by organisations such as York Central Action have been ignored by the Applicants.

General Comments

· The Railway is in a hurry to complete its refurbishment by 2025, this deadline explains why local residents are not being listened to.

· The proposals are going to create an unsafe environment that would increase the likelihood of sexual assaults and muggings.

4.2    A number of residents expressed the fact that they do not object to the expansion of the NRM in principle and value it as a place to visit and understand its contribution to York’s Visitor offer, however they remain concerned with the closure of Leeman Road and the proposed access arrangements.

4.3    13 letters of support were received from 2 local residents, Make It York, York Bid, Homes England, York Property Forum, York St John University, York Archaeological Trust, Network Rail, York College, Malmaison, Kevin Hollinrake MP and Julian Sturdy MP which can be summarised as follows:

· Welcome the aspirations of the NRM to reach 1.2 million visitors through its Vision 2025 of which Central Hall is a key element.

· Achieving this target would bring wider economic activity to York City Centre and the wider region to assist the city’s post-Covid recovery.

· The NRM’s position at the gateway to York Central means it has a wider strategic role.

· The scheme incorporates high quality design with sustainability measures.

· York Central is scheduled to transform this area of the city with 2,500 new homes and a new commercial quarter creating up to 6,500 jobs.

· The NRM can act as the cultural heart of York Central and Central Hall is a positive step towards realising this aspiration as a world class visitor attraction.

· The NRM’s continued success as a truly national museum at the heart of York, coupled with the city’s rich railway heritage provides a compelling case for further investment.

· The plans will add to the already fantastic cultural offer in York and help a wider range of other businesses in York to thrive by increasing numbers to the museum and encouraging visitors to stay longer.

· The fact this is the world’s largest railway museum means that it brings unique visitors to the city, to see an attraction no other city has.

· Many cities are embracing the UK staycation market and increasing their leisure offerings, therefore York and its attractions need to continue to evolve to compete. 

· The proposals will improve the built environment for local residents.

· Proposals are a small inconvenience to motorised vehicles having to use another route and will make the area more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, reducing the volume of traffic and pollution for residents in the immediate area. 

· Plans for a new Futures Gallery in Central Hall will help to engage young people in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related learning and future careers.

· Proposals are key to supporting York Central as an Enterprise Zone bringing together commercial, educational, cultural and residential use. 

· This includes the important steps the NRM are taking towards environmental sustainability in line with the Government mission to achieve Net Zero.

· The new footpaths and bus stops involved in the plans are within walking range for those with mobility issues.

4.4    Cllr Rachel Melly, Cllr David Heaton and Cllr Kalum Taylor as Councillors for Holgate Ward have objected to the proposals and their comments can be summarised as follows:

· Object in the strongest terms to the application.

· Not opposed to principle of NRM extending but oppose the proposals submitted.

· Proposals will have unacceptable significant negative impacts for active travel and parking provision which have not been mitigated, despite it being possible to do so.

· Numerous outline conditions have not been met.

· There is inadequate detail and inaccurate information within the supporting documentation, particularly around bus services. 

· The closure of Leeman Road means loss of public access for everyone who uses it for essential access by bus, walking, cycling, mobility aid, or private vehicle.

· Other routes through York Central are longer and more circuitous, subject to daily closures and only available for about a third of the time.

· Even if/when the riverside route is improved it will still be closed due to flooding many times a year and will also feel unsafe for some people.

· Removes the only route between the city centre and Leeman Road residential area which is direct and always available.

· Will disproportionately impact children and disabled people.  

· Question claims by NRM that a route over the top of its new building is not possible, allowing unhindered around the clock access for pedestrians and cyclists. There is still an opportunity to include this.

· Condition 45 of the outline permission stipulates arrangements for pedestrians to be able to pass through the proposed new extension.

· A Walkway agreement has been agreed between the NRM and CYC as Highways Authority even though it does the opposite of encouraging sustainable travel.

· Details of the Walkway Agreement are heavily one sided and excessively detrimental to local residents and does not come close to compensating loss of public access.

· There has been no public consultation on the Walkway Agreement, this being central to many residents’ concerns.

· The first time the Walkway Agreement was revealed was mid-way through the Public Inquiry into the Stopping Up of Leeman Road and was purely as a supplementary document rather than a matter for decision or amendment.

· Government Inspector for the Public Inquiry published damning feedback on the Walkway Agreement. 

· When Committee approved the outline application it was on the basis that with respect to pedestrians, the in principle acceptance of the closure of a section of Leeman Road is made on the clear proviso that, during the hours of opening of the NRM passage for the public on foot will be freely and directly available in perpetuity, through the NRM from Leeman Road on its North side to Marble Arch’.

· The Walkway Agreement does not provide freely available access, providing limited and heavily caveated access.

· Residents can currently go in a direct route without even having to cross a road.

· If access is available to blue badge holding occupants of the 14 car parking spaces can access, why cannot this be used by residents.

· All the above seeks to discourage people from using the access through the NRM.

· The critical Walkway Agreement between the NRM and CYC which deals with the terms of the permissive route through the new Central Hall is still to be considered as part of this application. The planning consultation cannot be deemed sufficient while this remains the case as it is impossible to fully understand the impact of the plans without being able to scrutinise it.

· The Travel Plan has used inaccurate data about local bus services, which undermines the Applicant’s claims linked to sustainable transport and travel plan for staff and visitors. This should be corrected.

· Car parking is based on a multi storey car park that does not exist, is outside the development site and does not even have full planning permission.

· This means the application does not meet the Outline planning conditions for car use reduction and is likely to cause unacceptable parking pressures nearby residential areas.

· The NRM should commit to fund a Residents’ Parking Scheme to protect the area.

· Car parking demand has not been based on projected increase in visitor numbers.

· The Outline planning permission stipulates through Condition 38 that car use must be reduced by 30%, the Travel Plan cannot be judged to achieve this due to discrepancies.

· The Outline planning permission required through Condition 52 a strategy for electric vehicle charging facilities, this is absent.

· Serious concerns regarding lighting strategy proposed as lighting appears to be limited. Aside from the dangers this presents it will only discourage active travel.

· The application does not include details to satisfy Condition 30 relating to an increase in biodiversity.

· The ecology survey lacks sufficient detail and relies on future applications to expand biodiversity.

· The BREEAM Report is a long way from the ambition of being an innovative design, highlights energy, pollution and innovation as being factors that are well below the standards of other considered areas.

· Concerns that the noise statement shows a night-time decrease for all areas other than St Paul’s Mews, this is a serious concern and needs scrutiny.

· There are inconsistencies in the Heritage Statement. 

· Urge the Planning Authority to ensure that the concerns raised by the Internal Drainage Board with respect to discharge to Holgate Beck are responded to. 

5.0  APPRAISAL

5.1    The key issues for consideration are as follows:

· Context within which to assess this Reserved Matters Application

· Highway matters

· Design, Layout, Appearance and Landscaping

· Heritage Impacts

· Ecology/Biodiversity

· Flooding and Drainage

· Public Protection matters

· Socio Economic matters

CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH TO ASSESS THE RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION

5.2    The outline approval referenced 18/01884/OUTM granted consent for the principle of the redevelopment of York Central to provide a mixed-use development including up to 12,120 m2 GEA of non-residential institutions (Class D1) for expansion of the National Railway Museum 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.  As the principle of an expansion to the Railway Museum has been approved this is not a matter for reconsideration as part of the determination of this reserved matters application. 

5.3    The proposals are to be considered within the context of the Parameters Plans (Condition 6) and Design Guide (Condition 7) approved at outline stage.  The approved Parameter Plans cover aspects of the scheme such as the buildings proposed for demolition and the limits of deviation within which new railway additions, access and circulation routes and areas of open space would be developed.  It also sets out the different types of development zones across the site and maximum heights and proposed site levels.  This application has been brought forward in accordance with the technical documents and parameter plans approved at outline stage.  The submission confirms that there are no new significant environmental effects which have been identified and as such any mitigation requirements proposed at outline stage remain unchanged.

5.4    Condition 7 of the outline approval requires that development is carried out in accordance with the Design Guide (DG) approved at outline stage.  This set out the design qualities of the scheme which the illustrative Masterplan was seeking to achieve and the underlying design intent which future reserved matters applications would need to adhere to.  This reserved matters application includes details of how the proposals conform with the approved Parameters Plans and Design Guide which are accepted by Officers.

5.5    The outline consent was also subject to a Section 106 agreement and 83 conditions.  A number of the conditions imposed relate to site wide aspects, the discharge of these conditions are being progressed by Homes England/Network Rail.  However, there are also a series of conditions which relate to the individual phases of development as they come forward.  As such there are some conditions which will require formal discharge prior to commencement or at other relevant trigger points within the development process.  Therefore where information has not been presented as part of this reserved matters application each section below confirms which relevant conditions would deal with any outstanding matters.  Any new conditions imposed should relate directly to the matters reserved and should not repeat those set out at outline stage as these are still relevant to the development of this site.

HIGHWAYS MATTERS

Reserved matters to be considered 

5.6    The highway matters relevant to the assessment of this application should focus on layout and access as set out in Condition 1 of the Outline Planning Permission.  Access through the proposed Central Hall is not a reserved matter subject to Condition 1 and this will be dealt with by virtue of the discharge of Condition 45 which will be submitted following reserved matters consent. 

5.7    The main access to the site for visitors by foot or bicycle would be to the south east through Museum Square.  This area will be re-designed as part of the wider York Central scheme and progressed through a future reserved matters application to be delivered by Homes England/Network Rail.  The access through Museum Square will provide a level access into the building and it is anticipated that parking for cycles would be provided close to this entrance point once Museum Square is developed.  It is not proposed to provide any dedicated car parking spaces for the Museum on this side given that there will be future parking provision through Multi Storey car parks which will also serve the Railway Station.  Temporary car parks will also be available across the wider York Central site and the location for these was set out within the reserved matters approval for the infrastructure works.

5.8    A secondary access point for pedestrians and cyclists travelling from the north west will also be provided and this access incorporates both a stepped and ramped option to provide level access into the Museum.  The access would follow the route of Leeman Road with provision of 14 disabled car parking spaces set within a new landscaped area.  CYC Highways have confirmed that the proposed layout of the site and the accesses proposed are acceptable in highway terms and accord with the approved Walkway Agreement, aside from the existing Walkway Agreement Plan which shows a different walkway alignment to that shown on this reserved matters application, the later provides a more direct route along the desire line of the stopped up Leeman Road.   As such the Walkway Agreement Plan will need to be varied so that the plan aligns with the proposed reserved matters plan should consent be granted.  This does not however prevent reserved matters being granted. 

5.9    Overall with respect to the layout, positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network Officers are satisfied that the proposals are acceptable.  Other matters which are not reserved matters for consideration as part of this application are set out below in order to provide context to Members of Planning Committee. 

Closure of Leeman Road

5.10  When outline consent was granted it clearly set out that Leeman Road would be stopped up to vehicles and cyclists with access through the museum for pedestrians during opening hours.  The principle of closing Leeman Road was therefore accepted at outline stage.

5.11  As a separate process, under the Highways Act the Applicants applied for a Stopping Up Order (SUO) in order to permanently remove highway rights from a section of Leeman Road.   Homes England and Network Rail were granted a Stopping Up Order by the Department for Transport for a 220m section of Leeman Road.  This Order came into effect on 6 October 2021 and is subject to a series of stipulations which must be complied with.  The SUO enables a section of Leeman Road to be removed as public highway and will come into operation once the Local Highway Authority is satisfied that the conditions of the Order have been met.  Prior to the stopping up coming into force, alternative vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes must be available around the stopped up length of Leeman Road.

5.12  There have been many objections received from local residents and interested parties in relation to the closure of Leeman Road however this aspect of the scheme has already been determined in principle through planning as part of the decision to grant outline consent and through highways as part of the Stopping Up Order this is therefore not a matter for reconsideration as part of this reserved matters application.

Route through the Museum Site/Walkway Agreement

5.13  During the course of the Stopping Up Inquiry the detailed arrangements for the operation of the route through the museum were agreed by virtue of a Walkway Agreement under Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980.  The purpose of a Walkway Agreement is to dedicate footways in, through or under parts of a building for use as a footpath.  The Walkway Agreement was approved on 27 April 2021 during the Stopping Up Inquiry, with a subsequent Deed of Variation to amend the associated plan dated 11 May 2021.

5.14 The Walkway Agreement requires that the reserved matters application for Central Hall shall include the provision of a pedestrian route through the extended NRM site which meets minimum design criteria as to width and gradient (set out in Clauses 3.3.1-3.3.10) and that from the opening date of Central Hall and during opening hours of the museum the walkway shall be deemed to be dedicated and accepted as a footway in accordance with S.35 of the Highways Act 1980 subject to the conditions set out in the Agreement (Clause 4.1.1) and the permissive path shall be available for use by public on foot as a permissive path subject to the conditions and limitations set out in the Agreement (Clause 4.1.2).

5.15 The opening hours of the museum are not stipulated within the Walkway Agreement but are currently Wednesday to Sunday 10am to 5pm outside of school holidays and 7 days during holidays, these are temporary hours.  The normal hours of opening are 7 days a week (except Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day) 10.00-18.00 hours between February half term and end of October half term and closing at 17.00 in winter months.  Limitations specify that the route can only be used by pedestrians or members of the public travelling in wheelchairs (manual or electric) or by children in prams and pushchairs and there are restrictions as to the improper use of the route (set out at Clauses 4.7.1-4.7.7).  Temporary closures are permitted in a limited range of circumstances including things such as royal visits, closures required by law (such as a shutdown of the museum because of a pandemic), for works to be executed and in cases of an emergency or security risk.  The Walkway Agreement also provides that, on up to 10 days in any one year, the route can be closed for all or part of the day to enable the NRM to host private functions. 

5.16 The Walkway Agreement is a formal agreement which has been made under the Highways Act and there will be a legal obligation to keep the route accessible to the public unless it is stopped up in accordance with the provisions and procedure set out in Regulation 6 of the Walkway Regulations 1973.

5.17 As part of this reserved matters application Highway Officers have expressed some concern regarding the access arrangements for pedestrians who simply want to pass through the Museum as they are concerned that they may have to join queues alongside visitors which they believe is not within the spirit of what was anticipated at outline stage. The Applicants state that it is anticipated that there would be very limited prospect of pedestrians encountering long queues upon their arrival at the building although this will be monitored and appropriately managed once Central Hall is operational.  Furthermore they state that on their approach to the building, pedestrians will be able to identify whether queuing is likely through appropriate signage and will have the option to utilise the alternative routes provided.   CYC Highways remain concerned about this aspect of the proposal however Officers note that this is an operational matter beyond the scope of the planning considerations relevant to this application and this matter should have been addressed through the measures set out within the existing Walkway Agreement when it was approved. 

5.18  A large number of objections received relate to the Walkway Agreement and there has been criticism that the Walkway Agreement was not submitted as part of this application.  For clarity the Walkway Agreement has already been approved during the course of the Stopping Up Inquiry and as such is not part of the documents to be determined as part of this reserved matters application.  The Applicants make reference to the Walkway Agreement where they consider it necessary to do so and that is adequate for the purposes of assessing this reserved matters application.  The Walkway Agreement can be viewed on the Council’s website or as part of the Stopping Up Inquiry documents which can be readily found on the internet and it is clear from the comments received that many residents have reviewed the document. 

5.19 There are also numerous comments which suggest that the design of the walkway route should be amended to provide either an overpass or underpass which enables 24/7 access.  Although these comments are noted the Council have to assess the application as presented to them within the context of the outline consent, reserved matters consent for infrastructure and the stopping up decision all of which have already been approved.

Alternative route for pedestrians and cyclists

5.20  When outline consent and the reserved matters consent for the primary infrastructure works was granted it was recognised that journey times for existing residents walking or cycling would increase by virtue of the closure of Leeman Road.  This was accepted on the basis that new more attractive routes would be provided through the York Central site which include segregated lanes for cycles and pedestrians, footpath widths being of modern standard allowing two wheelchairs to pass and being set back from the carriageway with routes being naturally overlooked with enhanced lighting and CCTV.  

5.21  For pedestrians and cyclists the approved alternative route will provide off road cycle routes and footways on both sides of the new road for most of its length.  There will be a new no-through road, footway and cycle-route connecting Leeman Road to the new primary road, referred to as Foundry Way.  The alternative route to Leeman Road for pedestrians and cyclists is therefore approved.  It was noted by Highways Officers at reserved matters stage that the infrastructure was in line with Cycle Infrastructure Design Guidance LTN 1/20 as far as practically possible.  Those areas that were not entirely compliant were due to site/land ownership and other constraints, however these deviations were accepted at reserved matters stage.  Details such as surfacing materials, landscaping, lighting, street furniture and CCTV are being dealt with a part of a series of discharge of conditions applications.  Homes England/Network Rail, who are delivering the infrastructure works, are currently in discussion with the Council regarding these elements of the scheme.  Officers are therefore satisfied that alternative provision for pedestrians and cyclists has already been secured through earlier consents and planning conditions.

5.22  Some residents have expressed concern as to what the environment around the new alternative pedestrian/cycling route will be.  Clearly the York Central site is being developed in phases therefore when the new infrastructure is built out it will, in part, run alongside future building plots.  Plots either side of Foundry Way are earmarked for residential use, the route would then sweep around the NRMs South yard which is earmarked for future regeneration as an active public realm including events and play space, the route then runs along Hudson Boulevard to the south of Station Hall where the future plots can be developed for any permitted use at ground floor and a combination of offices and any permitted use at first floor before joining the new road running alongside Museum Square and coal drops area.  Discussions are currently ongoing between the NRM, Homes England, Network Rail and North Yorkshire Police concerning CCTV and security matters relating to the infrastructure works to ensure that the site provides a safe environment throughout the build.  In addition each reserved matters application will be required to discharge Condition 19 prior to commencement which deals with designing out crime.  The Council are therefore satisfied that although the new route may run alongside vacant building plots there are measures in place to ensure that these routes will feel safe for residents to use throughout the build out of York Central.  

5.23  It has been recognised through earlier applications that the riverside path is an important alternative route for residents, however this sits outside of the York Central boundary.  Concern has been expressed through both the outline and previous reserved matters consent as well as this application that the closure of part of Leeman Road may encourage more residents to use this route as an alternative.  The Council note residents’ concerns that it regularly floods and that it feels unsafe if used out of daylight hours due to lack of lighting and natural overlooking.  Although works to this route do not form part of the York Central scheme and fall outside the scope of this application, the Council in recognising the importance of this route, have recently acquired the land and secured some of the funds necessary in order to carry out improvements to the route for cyclists and pedestrians.  The Council aims to have the improvements in place before the stopping up of Leeman Road is implemented, however the programme is dependent on the determination of the final scope of work, availability of funding and relevant approvals including from the Environment Agency.

5.24  As set out above alternative routes for vehicles, buses, pedestrians and cyclists and the impact on travel times have already been assessed in detail during the outline consent, reserved matters consent for infrastructure works and examined by the Inspector during the Stopping Up Inquiry.  In all instances the effects of the development on residents through use of  alternative routes has been accepted as a consequence of the York Central development as a whole.  Conditions attached to both the outline consent and set out within the Walkway Agreement prevent the stopping up of Leeman Road prior to the new route being provided.  This reserved matters application does not alter this situation and Officers are satisfied that alternative provision has been secured through earlier consents and the detail can be secured through relevant conditions to be discharged as part of the outline and reserved matters consents.  

Alternative route for buses and taxis

5.25  The new road infrastructure on the wider York Central scheme will provide an alternative route for both standard bus and Park and Ride services with an increased bus service and there is a commitment in the Section106 to fund additional services through the site so that there are 4 services per hour in each direction.  The Phase 1 infrastructure works includes provision of an eastbound bus lane on Park Street/Cinder Street to give priority for buses and taxis in order to reduce delays.  New bus stops, shelters and seating will be provided at intervals along the new highway to serve both existing and new residents.  A small bus hub will also be provided adjacent to Museum Square which would serve York Railway Station, the NRM and office workers.  All this infrastructure has already been approved and impacts on journey times for residents utilising these services have already been assessed and accepted when both the outline consent and the reserved matters application for the infrastructure was approved.

5.26  Concern has been expressed by some residents in respect of the accessibility of bus stops as existing local bus services which currently use Leeman Road will be routed through the York Central site, with a new bus link and stops to be provided on Park Street. The spacing of these stops have been designed as part of the infrastructure RMA so that all residents of York Central will be within easy reach of bus services.  The coverage of the Leeman Road Island area will be considered by CYC and the bus operators before they are re-routed, with existing S106 funding used, where required, to ensure adequate coverage.  Highway Officers have previously noted that this decision would be made by bus operators in conjunction with CYC teams and is therefore outside the scope of the planning application process.  Local Ward Councillors expressed concern that the bus times and numbers were incorrectly quoted within the application.  Highway Officers were aware of this at the time of making their comments which were based on the most up to date bus services.  The Council are therefore satisfied that bus provision has been adequately addressed through previous consents and there are mechanisms in place going forward to ensure that these measures are implemented.

Coach Access

5.27  The infrastructure RMA (20/00710/REMM) made provision for coach access/drop off and pick up for the Museum.  Under the infrastructure approval it was proposed that a layby by Museum Square would be provided to enable two coaches servicing the National Railway Museum to set down / pick up passengers.   The Applicant advised that European coaches will not be permitted to use these bays as passengers would not be able to alight onto the road carriageway. CYC Highways confirmed under the previous RMA that these arrangements are acceptable in terms of highway impacts and that a Traffic Regulation Order (outside of the planning process) will be required to manage use of the coach bays.  This reserved matters application does not alter the proposed arrangements already approved. 

NRM Road Train

5.28  A layby and turning area immediately west of Leeman Road tunnel for drop off / pick up and turning of the National Railway Museum road train were approved as part of the infrastructure works. Under that consent it was envisaged that the road train arriving from the city centre would pull into the layby for passengers to alight and board. The train would then u-turn in the space available to the south of the carriageway and the signal timings of the Leeman Road tunnel would allow the road train to turn out to head back into the city centre while the pedestrian crossing is operational. It was anticipated that the new arrangements for the road train would become operational once the development of Museum Square commences and the road train stop within the National Railway Museum forecourt becomes unavailable.  CYC Highways confirmed under the previous consent that these arrangements are acceptable in terms of highway impacts and that a Traffic Regulation Order (outside of the planning process) will be required to manage use of the bays.  These proposals would not impact on the arrangements already agreed, although in the interests of highway safety, Highway Officers have recommended a condition be attached to ensure that the arrangements for the road train are agreed.

Alternative routes for cars

5.29  A number of objections received are concerned with the alternative routes proposed around the site once Leeman Road is stopped up and whilst beyond the scope of this reserved matters application it is useful to set out what those alternative provisions are so that Members are clear on this matter. 

5.30  The outline approval for York Central within which the Museum sits was submitted with an Environmental Statement within which highway and transport impacts arising from the development were assessed in a series of detailed Transport Assessments including Traffic Modelling.  These were undertaken on the basis that a section of Leeman Road would be stopped up for traffic with a potential pedestrian connection which ‘could be through a building’ along the former Leeman Road (Approved Outline Parameter Plan YC-PP-006). 

5.31  The Transport Assessment accompanying the outline application also set out an analysis of distance and journey times for various modes of transport utilising various route options between existing residential areas to Marble Arch and the Railway Station based on worst case scenarios in respect of traffic numbers.  It was therefore recognised and accepted when outline consent was granted that there would be some journey times increased as a result of the NRM expansion and closure of Leeman Road.  This was considered in the context that the wider York Central development would comprise high quality and attractive new routes.  The impacts on accessibility and increased journey times, particularly for local residents were set out in detail at Paragraphs 16.54 to 16.66 of the OPA Committee Report and accepted by Members at the time of that decision being taken.  These anticipated impacts remain unchanged by this reserved matters application.

5.32  The first of the York Central reserved matters applications under reference 20/00710/REMM granted in November 2020 sought consent 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.  This consent secured the new vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes through York Central which include alternative routes to Leeman Road.

5.33  The approved alternative route for vehicles is through a new length of road linking Garfield Terrace to the west, passing to the south of the NRM before re-joining Leeman Road to the east at the entry to Leeman Road Tunnel/ Marble Arch.  The road includes a segregated bus lane over part of its length.  The traffic modelling already undertaken assessed the impacts on the existing highway network and indicated that there would be an increase in journey times for vehicles but these were found to be acceptable when granting the reserved matters application for the infrastructure works.   These proposals would result in any additional impacts beyond those already identified and approved.

Impact arising from increased visitor numbers on the existing highway network

5.34  The OPA Transport Assessment confirmed that the NRM only generates limited traffic in the commuter peak periods and this would not be anticipated to change as a result of the proposed expansion.  This was accepted by CYC Highways to be the case when outline approval was granted.  In order to provide an updated assessment, this reserved matters application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment which assess impacts arising from the development based on data gathered in respect of visitor and staff trip rates.  The Transport Assessment confirms that there would be a slight increase in peak hour car traffic by 17 cars and 9 cars in the pm peak, this is due to the removal of the free staff car parking, however this traffic is already included within the previous traffic modelling and is below the trigger at which trip making might be noticeable on the highway and as such this small change does not require any further traffic modelling work to be undertaken.  CYC Highways accept the contents of the Transport Assessment and raise no objections with respect to highway network impacts. 

Travel Plan/Encouraging Sustainable Transport Modes

5.35  The outline planning application was supported by a Framework Travel Plan (FTP) which provided an initial site-wide structure for a proposed 15 year sustainable travel strategy to be implemented. The FTP contained a limited level of detail however it was accepted that this would be developed further at reserved matters stage.  Condition 37 of the OPA also sets out that each reserved matters application for a building shall include a development specific Travel Plan to be approved prior to occupation and this must thereafter be adhered to.

5.36  The FTP firmly established a quantifiable measure of success in relation to travel plan objectives, namely a principal target which seeks to achieve a minimum 30% reduction in development generated car trips (and a 10% mode split reduction in single occupancy car journeys compared against an agreed baseline position).  Funding for the measures proposed in the FTP were secured through the S106 agreement.

5.37  The submitted Travel Plan confirms that the plans would generate employment for an additional 35 staff and opportunities for up to 150 volunteers/casual staff spread across the week.  A staff travel to work survey undertaken by the NRM in 2021 suggests that the current travel modes by car are high.  The proposals will remove free staff car parking so staff would need to shift to alternative modes of travel.  It is envisaged that once free car parking is removed for staff travel modes would be 25% walk, 32% train, 18% bus, 5% cycle and 20% car, with those travelling by car parking elsewhere.  The NRM propose to include material in staff inductions for travel options available for staff.  Staff cycle parking will be provided through 15 covered stands (for 30 bikes), 6 stands (for 12 bikes) adjacent Great Hall with 10 stands (20 bikes) by the conference centre entrance for staff or visitors with  staff shower/changing facilities to encourage access to the site by bike.  Among other measures, the NRM will also participate in a subsidised cycle purchase scheme aimed to encourage access by cycling.  They will also set up a car share scheme within 3 months of site occupation.  

5.38  With respect to visitors, the submitted Travel Plan states that visitor numbers are expected to increase by an estimated 250,000 per year based on Central Hall, Wonderlab plus other internal gallery changes.  The Travel Plan therefore seeks to promote access to the museum by sustainable transport modes.  Travel options to visitors will be displayed on the NRM website.  Cycle parking for visitors would largely be provided by a proposed cycle hub planned at the new station entrance with additional visitor spaces provided at both entrances.  The existing 20 uncovered cycle parking spaces would be relocated within Museum Square when that phase of the development comes forward.  Cycle parking adjacent to the conference entrance will be increased to accommodate 10 stands/20 cycles which will be covered for visitors with a further 21 stands for 42 bikes.  A further 11 uncovered cycle stands (22 spaces) will be provided adjacent to the steps by the new walkway close to the Central Hall entrance.  A total of 104 cycle parking spaces for staff/visitors will be provided across the site.  Within the 14 disabled parking spaces it is proposed to provide 2 electric vehicle charging points.  In addition Condition 52 of the outline consent requires that details of electric vehicle charging shall be provided and this will need to be discharged prior to commencement. 

Parking provision

5.39  The OPA set out that at any time the car parking provision must not be in excess of ratios prescribed, meaning that any current/temporary car parking would have to be removed concurrent with the opening of new parking, the phasing of car parking is further controlled through Condition 12 of the outline consent.  The OPA set out that parking for visitors to the NRM would be provided within a new multi storey car park (MSCP) with 200 spaces provided (a reduction of 134 over existing capacity).  It was also intended that 70 spaces would be retained in the NRM north yard for staff.  There was concern expressed by Highway Officers at outline stage as to why there was a requirement for 70 spaces as it was felt that this could undermine the ability to achieve sustainable travel plan for the NRM over the long term.  It is now the intention that the 70 spaces would no longer be used for staff car parking, other than blue badge or out of hours use which is due to the need to use this area at other times for servicing and storage and occasional low loader access.  A further 14 spaces were envisaged at outline stage for disabled badge holders which would be accessed from Leeman Road on the north side and these are included on the layout plan. 

5.40  It is still the intention of the Museum that car parking provision would be provided at the MSCP, however given that there is no RMA submission for this as yet the Applicants have set out the arrangements for temporary car parking provision until a point that the MSCP is in place.  In addition to this the reserved matters application for infrastructure works set out the location of various temporary car parking across the wider site.  Condition 12 of the outline approval requires that no development shall commence, other than enabling works of any phase, sub-phase or building and construction of the Primary Vehicle Route (as defined by parameter plan YC-PP 006: Access and Circulation Routes), until a detailed phasing strategy for car parking has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  A part discharge of this condition was granted under reference AOD/20/00109 in order for commencement of the primary vehicle route.  It will be a requirement for the Applicant to submit a phasing strategy for car parking in accordance with Condition 12 prior to their development commencing so that the most up to date position can be considered.  In addition Condition 48 of the outline consent requires a site specific parking management strategy which will need to be discharged prior to commencement. 

5.41  Concerns regarding displaced car parking impacting on surrounding residential areas such as the Leeman Road residential area was addressed at outline stage where it was advised that in the unlikely event that car parking was displaced on residential areas this would be mitigated through provisions within the S106 Agreement. 

Servicing

5.42  The Infrastructure RMA stated that a service access would be maintained on Leeman Road to provide access for the NRM, Northern Power and Network Rail to their assets to the north east of the NRM buildings, low loader turning would be available on Foundry Way (the new road adjacent to the NRM south yard), access to the NRM forecourt for inclusive parking, maintenance and servicing would be provided from Leeman Road (west) and Cinder Street.  It also stated that Hudson Boulevard is designed to be a service road.  The submitted Transport Assessment states the proposals align with the Infrastructure RMA.  In addition it clarifies that access to the north service area/car park would be maintained.  Condition 49 of the outline consent requires a site specific vehicle servicing strategy to be approved prior to commencement and this will therefore need to be discharged accordingly.

Construction Traffic Impacts

5.43  It is intended that construction traffic routing will be addressed through the Construction Environmental Management Plan which would need to be discharged through Condition 15 of the outline consent prior to commencement of development.

Highway Conclusions

5.44  Having had regard to all of the highway related issues CYC Highways confirm that the reserved matters pertaining to the layout and access is acceptable in highway terms and conforms with the approved Walkway Agreement.  The proposals are in line with what was accepted at outline stage in terms of traffic generation, impact on the existing highway network, alternative routes for pedestrians and cyclists and parking provision.  There are also sufficient measures in place through conditions and the Section 106 attached at outline stage in order to promote sustainable travel and this is aligned with the Council’s transportation policies.  The proposals are therefore in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policies set out above.  Furthermore the Environmental Compliance Statement confirms that the there are no additional effects than were reported in the traffic and transport chapter, and as a result the conclusions of the ES remain valid.

HERITAGE IMPACTS

Impact on Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets

5.45  The impacts on heritage assets are assessed in the context of whether the detailed proposals submitted accord with what was set out at outline stage and to establish whether the conclusions of the ES remain valid.  In addition applications should be considered in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which states in section 66(1) that local authorities shall have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting’ when considering proposals affecting listed buildings or their settings.  Section 72 of the same Act requires local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

5.46  Relevant paragraphs of Chapter 16 of the NPPF set out how LPAs should approach determining applications that affect heritage assets.  When considering the impact of proposals on designated heritage assets great weight is to be given to the asset’s conservation and any harm to or loss of the significance of such assets requires clear and convincing justification.  Thus, the provisions of the NPPF import a requirement to identify whether there is any harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets and if so to assess the impact of such harm. 

5.47  The OPA ES included a Heritage Statement which set out the baseline description of key heritage assets within and around the site.  The report acknowledged that the York Central site still contains many railway buildings seen at the turn of the twentieth century valued as part of York’s industrial heritage.  The buildings were considered to have greater significance when considered as a whole than a set of individual buildings.  The most significant of the NRM buildings being the Goods Station, with its unusually intact sequence of Goods Station, Weigh Office and entrance Gateposts all of which are Grade II listed and still associated with a surviving Coal Office, a remnant of the Coal Depot, stables, two LNER traders stores and a mess room which were considered important examples of Victorian processes for handling goods and coal. 

5.48  The OPA ES stated that the Grade II listed forecourt grouping therefore have a high significance, although the multiple lines of railings and fencing together with the significant levels of parking currently detract from the setting of these buildings.  The setting analysis submitted therefore recognised that the proposed York Central development offered positive opportunities for the heritage of the railway land.  The OPA identified buildings for retention/demolition and highlighted the former mess room as a building which could be either demolished or retained.  Paragraph 4.1.6 of the OPA Heritage Statement states that the mess room is of medium significance due to its aesthetic, evidential and communal value and that conservation would be recommended.  There was suggestion at the time that this could be used as a NRM facility.

5.49  The submitted reserved matters application proposes the demolition of the current entrance and part of the lean-to building alongside Station Hall, both of which are modern additions attached to listed structures.  In addition it is proposed to remove the former mess room a non-designated heritage asset attached to the listed Bullnose building.  The submitted Heritage Statement considers that the proposed demolition of modern elements would enhance the opportunity to appreciate the significance of the Goods Shed (Station Hall).  In terms of setting the Heritage Statement considers that the proposals would open up views to the Goods Station for visitors to the museum to appreciate. The report considers that Central Hall would enhance the contribution made by the entrance to the setting of nearby listed buildings by introducing attractive new built form. It states that those elements which contribute principally to the significance of the listed buildings at the site (such as the legibility of the railway use) would be unaffected and the ability to appreciate their special interest and their collective interest as an ensemble at the heart of a historic complex would be unchanged. 

5.50  Historic England commented that few large urban goods station survive nationally, the Goods Station complex in York is considered to be one of the most important and best preserved in the country.  It is of special interest for its continued connection to the rail network, degree of intactness and the high survival rate of ancillary structures that were essential to its function.  Some of these buildings and structures namely the Goods Station, the Weigh Office, the Coal Manager’s Office and House, gate piers and gates are individually listed at Grade II.  The survival of other ancillary structures, the remains of the coal depot, former mess room, stables, concrete depot, hydraulic powerhouse, iron foundry and casting shop help to tell the story of how the Goods Station operated and evolved.  Historic England consider that together these structures have considerable historic and group value and felt that there was a lack of justification for the demolition of the mess room which contributes to group value of the complex. In addition they felt there was a lack of justification on the impact on the setting of the designated and non-designated assets resulting from the changes to the way in which the complex would be accessed. 

5.51  Following a meeting with Historic England the Applicants submitted additional information which explains that whilst the NRM now own the bullnose building they do not own all the land surrounding it.  This will be delivered as part of Museum Square and is being delivered by York Central Partnership and as such will come forward as a separate reserved matters application.  As set out at outline stage it is intended that Museum Square together with Station Quarter would become the key public space within the York Central site and the public ‘front door’ to the NRM.  It is recognised that this area is important to the setting of heritage assets and the importance of the delivery of this space is noted however this is beyond the control of the NRM and as such should not prevent the determination of this reserved matters application.  In referring back to the approved OPA Design Guide it is not difficult to envisage how the bullnose building can successfully be integrated into this area of new public realm.  The Applicants state it is not unusual for historic buildings to stand isolated from others and is an approach taken on many regeneration schemes.  The Applicants have the intention of improving the bullnose building and bringing it back in to active use which in turn will bring added benefits to the site and its historic setting, however this is currently beyond the scope of this application. 

5.52  With respect to loss of the non-designated former mess room the Applicants state that its retention was explored through the design process, however demolition was considered the optimal solution in order to provide an appropriate and sympathetic context for the new museum entrance.  They consider that the intrinsic architectural and historic interest of the bullnose building would not be affected by the proposals and the loss of the mess room, which is a later addition and thus would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm.  They express the benefits deriving from the scheme in terms of the architectural quality of the development proposed, removal of detracting modern additions to better reveal designated heritage assets, enhancing the setting of the listed group of buildings and securing a sustainable future for listed buildings such as the bullnose building.  These benefits are in addition to those set out in the planning statement in terms of the economic and cultural benefits the new development will offer the City.

5.53  Having re-consulted Historic England remain concerned regarding a cohesive design for Museum Square and public spaces.  They note that Condition 23 was attached at outline stage and this required a site wide landscaping strategy to be approved.  The Council are in discussion with Homes England/Network Rail in relation to the discharge of this condition.  It however remains the case that the NRM do not have control over this land nor are they delivering this reserved matters application.  The Council are therefore satisfied that through existing outline conditions and any forthcoming reserved matters application an appropriate design for this area will come forward in due course and whilst it may have been preferred to have this in delivered alongside Central Hall, this is not the case and it should not prevent the determination of this reserved matters application. 

5.54  Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer, whilst not objecting to the scheme remain concerned regarding the loss of the mess room and isolation of the bullnose building.  Paragraph 203 of the NPPF 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.

5.55  Officers have taken into account the comments regarding the significance of the non-designated heritage asset and note the information submitted at outline stage and the further Heritage Statements submitted as part of this application.  The proposals explain how the retention of this non designated building would lead to a fragmentation of the civic space, reduce its sense of grandeur as set out the OPA Design Guide and would compromise outdoor seating for the Museum by making that area of the site feel secluded and disconnected to the main public square.  Whilst the loss of the non-designated mess room is unfortunate Officers are satisfied that the Applicant’s have justified their approach.  In addition the application clearly sets out the benefits derived from the scheme as referenced above and as articulated in the response from the Council’s Economic Development Team.  The Council therefore consider that the loss of this non designated heritage asset is outweighed by the significant economic, social and cultural benefits the proposals will bring not only to the City of York but also as a cornerstone of the York Central development.    

Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area

5.56  The station and land to the east of it (including the city walls) lie within the Central Historic Core Conservation Area.  Character Area 22 of the Conservation Area relates to the Railway Area which contains a mix of building types, of varying scale and period with many surviving features which relate to the arrival and development of the railway which form a strong narrative when considered alongside the buildings within the York Central site.  Many of the surviving buildings within this part of the conservation area are listed and as such have a high significance within a historic setting of high significance. 

5.57  At outline stage it was recognised that direct impacts on the setting of heritage assets in the Historic Core Conservation Area as a whole were relatively minor.  A small number of visual connections would be lost through the demolition of buildings and development of buildings during later reserved matters phases, however it was considered that these may not necessarily constitute an adverse effect, particularly in terms of the railway heritage of the city.  At outline stage it was assumed that several redundant buildings in the railway yards (such as the Bullnose building for example) could be conserved and brought back into use, they could then (through positive design interventions) be reintegrated into York’s wider ‘railway area’ setting.  This would benefit the former NER buildings in the Railway Area conservation area, however these would be part of further reserved matters applications.  Overall having had regard to the impacts of the proposals on the setting of conservation area it is considered that appropriate consideration has been given to impacts through the design and retention of buildings where possible and that any impacts would be less than substantial and outweighed by public benefits deriving from the scheme.

5.58  At outline stage it was established that there would be no impact on St. Paul’s Square and Holgate Road Conservation Areas and having considered the layout and design this is still considered to be the case.

Impact on setting of Listed Buildings outside the York Central site

5.59  The outline application was accompanied by a Heritage Report and Visual Impact Assessment which identified impacts on the setting of and views to and from the city’s most renowned buildings, these being the Minster and the City Walls (both of which are Grade I Listed and of very high significance).  In addition York Railway Station (Grade II* Listed), Holgate Windmill, Poppleton Road School and the Fox Inn on Holgate Road (Grade II Listed) were all identified as being of high significance. 

5.60  The OPA Environmental Statement identified that overall York Central development was not considered to detract from the historic setting of the City as a whole.  Page 24 of the OPA Design Guide states that RMAs shall be required to test the scheme against specific townscape views subject to relevance.  This is required in order to protect views of York’s landmark buildings and structures and the connections between them and the relationship of the historic city to the wider landscape.  Whilst it is noted that the proposals would not impact on some of the key views identified at outline stage, Historic England in their initial response requested that further information be provided in respect of long range views of the city’s historic core. 

5.61  The Applicant provided a number of additional key views of the proposed Central Hall from around York Station and the City Walls and Historic England confirmed that they had no further observations or comments to make in respect of these.  Similarly the Council’s Conservation Officer made no comment it is therefore considered that there would be no detrimental impact on the setting of Listed Buildings outside of the York Central site.

Archaeology

5.62  The area around York Central has produced significant archaeological remains and the wider site is a complex landscape that has significant potential to preserve locally, regionally, nationally and internationally significant archaeological features and deposits.  Despite the York Central site being heavily impacted by the construction of the railway infrastructure in many areas it is believed that there will be pockets of in-situ undisturbed archaeological remains in areas where the natural topography was built-up as part of the 19^th century levelling works. 

5.63  The York Central Deposit Model suggests that undisturbed paleo-archaeological and potentially cultural remains may survive throughout the York Central site.  The deposit model suggests that these undisturbed deposits may be preserved within the western part of the NRM development area.

5.64  Condition 68 attached at outline stage required that as part of any Reserved Matters Application a detailed Archaeological Remains Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The application is therefore accompanied by an Archaeological Remains Management Plan (ARMP) Version 1.04 dated November 2021.  The ARMP conforms with and builds on the principles and requirements set out in the York Central Archaeological Management Plan (Outline Mitigation Strategy) submitted for the wider York Central site.

5.65  The Council’s Archaeologist advised that the ARMP would sit as an appendix to the main York Central ARMP.  The Council’s Archaeologist has confirmed that the first stage of evaluation has been completed comprising of three trenches.  She advised that accessible areas for evaluation were limited due to live services and the use of the Museum and Leeman Road.  The initial evaluation did not reveal any significant archaeological features or deposits.  However given the limitations of the evaluation the Council’s Archaeologist has agreed with the Applicants that further evaluation works will be undertaken once live services and infrastructure have been decommissioned and therefore a condition is requested in order to secure this.   

5.66  Historic England have commented that they are satisfied with the evaluation strategy and the evidence presented to date and as such have no further comments.  The proposals are therefore acceptable in terms of the approach to archaeology subject to an additional condition.  Conditions set out within the outline approval would also need to be adhered to. 

DESIGN, LAYOUT, APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING

Design Compliance with Outline Planning Approval

5.67  The Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted at outline stage described the design intent of the development and the key townscape and placemaking considerations.  It described how the site would be divided into five distinct areas, each defined by a differing mix of uses and each with its own character, responding to constraints and opportunities and to the design drivers of the development.

5.68 The OPA Design Guide advanced the design intent in the DAS and provided guidance for developers in the successful delivery of the development.  The Design Guide set out mandatory requirements which subsequent RMAs would adhere to alongside advisory aspirational guidelines which would need to be taken into account by future developers.  The Design Guide was conditioned as part of the outline approval (Condition 7) in order to deliver a coherent approved vision in accordance with design guidance as detailed in National Planning Guidance.  In addition a series of parameter plans were approved at outline stage (Condition 6). 

5.69  Each reserved matters application has to be accompanied by a Design Compliance Statement explaining how that phase, accords with the approved Design Guide and Parameter Plans.  The application includes a compliance statement which sets out how the proposals accord with the design parameters set out in the OPA as follows:

· The site is within the red line boundary of the outline permission;

· The assumed maximum gross external area for the NRM extension set out at outline stage was 11,710sqm, the development is within this well within this limit at around 3,500sqm;

· The limits of deviation for access arrangements for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists around York Central were set out at outline stage and the primary infrastructure route fixed as part of the reserved matters application;

· The proposals include 14 disabled car parking spaces for NRM allowed for within the OPA ES;

· The sequence of development aligns with that set out at outline stage, albeit the construction programme has a delayed commencement; and

· The scale and mass of the development is within the defined parameters.

Layout, Appearance and Scale

5.70 The outline planning consent showed indicatively the area where a potential extension at the museum site would be located.  The proposed extension sits within this area, however has been reduced significantly in scale and massing which enables a greater relief between the new extension and the listed bullnose building, enables an outdoor seating space onto Museum Square to be incorporated and allows more landscaping to be provided on the northern side of the building. 

5.71  Following demolition of the existing entrance and visitor facilities, the sidings (mess room) and various smaller structures around the site it is proposed to construct a largely single storey structure sitting between Station Hall and the Great Hall with a two storey rotunda placed centrally within the structure.  The extension would provide new visitor facilities, new gallery space, shop and café and provide level access between the existing gallery spaces.  The proposals would unite all the existing NRM buildings.  The design and access statement explains that the rotunda has been placed to ensure clear views would be provided to the key museum spaces and would open up views towards the city and allow further appreciation of the site as a former goods station. 

5.72  In terms of building heights the design and access statement explains that these are driven in large by the existing structures on site. The maximum height set out within the OPA would only be reached with the central drum which is the key focal point, the eastern wing is much lower to create a transition towards the bullnose building.  The western wing responds to the Station Hall with its height set according to the brick detailing on the parapet of Station Hall.  Through stepping down the height from Station Hall it indicates the secondary nature and provides a transition towards the scale of the Learning Platform building.  These aspects of the scheme were presented to the Council’s Conservation Architect within a 3D model and pre-application discussions where it was confirmed that the design response with respect to the scale and height of the proposed building was considered appropriate within its context.   The Council’s Conservation Architect commented that the proposals are well considered with a strong rationale behind the design development.  He considered that the ‘rotunda’ successfully helps the translation in scale between the existing Great Hall and the much smaller but listed Peter Allen building. It was noted that the setting of the Peter Allen building could have been compromised by the dominance of the Great Hall following demolition to facilitate these proposals. The careful handling of the new design’s massing, however, means that the Peter Allen building retains some prominence.   Historic England have also commented that the design is well considered, introducing a recognisably contemporary element as the focal point to the assemblage of historic buildings.  They consider the simple cylinder of the new Central Hall will serve as a reference point without competing with listed structures and sits well within its context.  They consider that the palette of materials is also well chosen.  Internally they consider the proposals are clear and engaging with the introduction of the upper gallery bringing the opportunity to open up views towards the city core and Minster. 

5.73  Although Museum Square is being delivered by the York Central Partnership as a separate reserved matters application the design and access statement explains that the elevation fronting it has been given careful consideration given that it will be the main focal point.  The elevation thus provides a regular window arrangement to the café with some variations with doors providing connection to the outdoor café space.  An entrance portico in the middle of the elevation has been aligned with the drum and serves to demarcate the entrance.  To the west elevation the appearance is simplified taking into account its adjacency to listed buildings with one key picture window on the elevation.  The northern approach is a secondary façade with less intricate brick detailing and features the entrance doors set within the drum.  This design approach is supported by the Council’s Conservation Architect who was involved in pre-application discussions regarding these elements of the scheme.

5.74  In terms of appearance and materials it is proposed to use copper or copper alloy cladding for the proposed drum, this would be treated to prevent the copper transitioning from darker brown to green.  At high level the drum would have clerestory glazing exposing the Douglas fir roof structure within.  Brick is proposed for facades and metal for the roof coverings.  The precise colour of brick has not been chosen at this stage and as such a condition would be necessary in order that sample panels can be inspected prior to commencement.  Windows and doors are proposed to be slimline steel or anodised aluminium.  It is proposed to incorporate concealed gutters and downpipes.  The materials are in line with pre application discussions and again supported by the Council’s Conservation Architect subject to conditions that material samples be provided. 

Landscaping

5.75  In terms of landscaping as discussed earlier in this report Museum Square would be developed as part of a future reserved matters application therefore the landscaping proposed on this reserved matters relates to that on the western approach.  Given that this area of the proposals will provide disabled parking spaces and a servicing entrance the scope for soft landscaping is somewhat limited.  Through discussions with the Council’s Landscape Architect the Applicants have however maximised the soft landscaping where possible, have introduced tree planting and have sought to reduce the appearance of a truncated road through the use of a mixture of different surfacing materials.  The Council’s Landscaping Architect is satisfied that the landscaping scheme is appropriate given the constraints of the site.  Condition 23 of the outline consent requires a site wide landscaping strategy and this is currently being discussed with Council Officers and Homes England/Network Rail in order that this condition can be discharged.  The Council are however satisfied that the landscaping proposals set out in this reserved matters application will not compromise the site wide landscaping elements currently in discussion.  Condition 24 of the outline consent requires site specific landscape details to be approved prior to commencement of development and this condition will require formal discharge aside from this reserved matters application. 

Sustainability measures

5.76  The application is accompanied by a BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report.  The proposals are for the extension to be sustainably designed with a commitment to low energy, low or non-mechanical systems and alternative energy strategies.   This includes using passive design measures, use of low carbon materials such as timber and steel, highly insulated materials to reduce heating demands, mixed mode ventilation provided by mechanical ventilation and heat recovery to relieve overheating and maintaining air quality in summer, air source heat pumps for heating and hot water and sanitary uses, water efficient fittings and meters with leak detection systems, restricted surface water runoffs through below ground attenuation tanks and where feasible permeable paving.  

5.77  The Council’s Carbon Reduction Project Officer has considered the submitted report and states that the report does not commit to anything at this stage and as such they have requested that further conditions be attached.  It should however be noted that Condition 51 of the outline consent requires a Design Stage Pre-Assessment Report showing that the building will achieve at least a BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’ and this has to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development with a further requirement for submission of a post development review six months after completion of the development to demonstrate that BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’ has been met.  The Council are therefore satisfied that there are mechanisms already in place to ensure sustainable construction without further conditions being required. 

Designing Out Crime

5.78  With respect to designing out crime the design and access statement confirms it is proposed to address issues of safety through the northern route being designed to be overlooked by museum spaces for most of its length with external lighting to be provided to ensure that the path is well lit and feels secure.  The Applicants confirmed that the North Yorkshire Police Designing Out Crime Officer was consulted pre-submission and discussions are ongoing with respect to anti-terrorism measures.  The Council are satisfied that designing out crime has been and continues to be considered and it will be addressed in further detail through the future discharge of condition 19 which relates to secure by design measures being incorporated into the design.  This condition will need to be discharged prior to commencement. 

Townscape and Visual Impact

5.79  In terms of the townscape and visual impacts arising from the proposals these were considered in the OPA Townscape Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) which concluded that there would be adverse effects on townscape setting and a number of viewpoints as a result of construction activities, but that the effects were temporary and would vary during the construction programme.  These findings were accepted by the Council at outline stage.  There are no new or different construction effects than were reported in the OPA TVIA and as a result the conclusions of the ES remain valid.

5.80 This reserved matters application sits within the limits of deviation set out at outline stage and proposes a much smaller building than anticipated at outline stage.  Some visuals have been provided from the Station and City Walls and it has been confirmed that any impacts on views from Holgate Windmill and Windmill Rise to York Minster and from Bouthwaite Drive to York Minster have been mitigated.  The proposals are therefore considered acceptable in respect of their townscape and visual impacts which sit comfortably within what was anticipated at outline stage.

ECOLOGY/BIO-DIVERSITY

Impact on Habitats and Protect Species

5.81  The York Central site as a whole contains extensive areas (9.18ha.) of ephemeral habitat (e.g. the limestone ballast of railway sidings). This is considered to be the most ecologically significant habitat on site due to the invertebrate assemblage it supports, and in part as there are unlikely to be any other sites supporting this extent of habitat elsewhere in York and North Yorkshire. The Ecological Impact Assessment submitted within the OPA ES concluded that the loss of this habitat will result in a permanent moderate adverse effect on ephemeral vegetation and minor adverse effect on scrub and tall ruderal and broadleaved woodland.  The ES set out mitigation which would be embedded into the design which comprised of planting 0.43ha of woodland, provision of 0.95ha of ephemeral vegetation, 2180m of green corridor consisting of hedgerow within minimum planting of 80+ trees, creation of 465m of SuDS and 0.4ha wetland waterbody habitat with retained habitats fenced off with a buffer zone if possible sitting alongside a LEMP outlining maintenance post construction.  Following this mitigation it was accepted at outline stage that there would be a significant impact on habitat loss arising from the wider York Central scheme. 

5.82  Whilst this habitat loss was accepted at outline stage, given the extent of this loss it is extremely important that each reserved matters scheme brought forward includes the appropriate mitigation and habitat retention/enhancement set out at outline stage.

5.83 A number of ecological surveys on specific species were undertaken at outline stage, however it was recognised that these were to provide baseline information and would need to be updated for each reserved matters phase to reflect changes in the distribution or abundance of mobile species on the site.  Condition 28 of the outline consent therefore required that application(s) for reserved matters shall include an up to date (no more than 2 years old) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and any further necessary habitat or species surveys as recommended by the appraisal. 

5.84  This reserved matters application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal dated April 2021 which is valid until October 2022.  The survey confirms that there was no evidence of bats or other protected species at the site and no invasive species recorded.  The report therefore confirms that there is no further survey work required in these respects.  The report sets out a method statement for works which advise of a precautionary approach should there be evidence of bats upon commencement.  The report also recommends that at least 2 bat boxes and 2 bird boxes are sited on new buildings on site.  The report also advises that a lighting consultant be employed to design lighting with ecology in mind.  It also recommends that a detailed Ecological Construction Method Statement and Plan be produced in order to protect, maintain and enhance the site’s ecological value. 

5.85  The Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that the report submitted is in line with current guidance and does not raise any further concerns regarding ecological receptors.  It is recommended that the measures set out in the appraisal are conditioned.  Impacts during construction can be covered by Condition 15 of the outline consent which requires a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement.   On the basis of the above it is therefore considered that the proposals accord with the OPA ES in that there have been no significant changes with respect to the habitats or species within the site and as such ecological impacts remain as originally envisaged. 

Biodiversity Enhancement

5.86 With respect to biodiversity enhancement, Condition 30 of the outline approval requires each reserved matters application to provide a Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) for the creation of new wildlife features to secure net gains for biodiversity.  It is recognised that the opportunity for biodiversity enhancement on this part of the site is quite restrained and that greater opportunity for biodiversity enhancement exists within the South Yard area which will come forward as a future reserved matters application.  It is however proposed to provide bird and bat boxes and the Council’s Ecologist is satisfied with this approach which aligns with the requirements of Condition 30.

FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE

Flooding

5.87  The application site is located within flood zone 1 and as such is at low probability of flooding.   Flood risk matters relating to the wider site were addressed as part of the OPA.

Drainage

5.88  At outline stage it was confirmed that separate foul, surface water and highway water drainage systems would be utilised as investigations had shown that infiltration methods of surface water disposal were not suitable. A series of drainage conditions (73 to 82) were attached at outline stage which require formal discharge prior to commencement and discussions are currently ongoing with respect to the discharge of these conditions as part of the infrastructure works therefore any proposals put forward in respect of drainage on this part of the site will need to adhere to the overarching drainage conditions and subsequent details approved. 

Foul Drainage

5.89  An existing sewer routes underneath Leeman Road which was identified on the OPA.  The OPA set out that the existing Yorkshire Water sewer would be diverted into a new sewer network which would run beneath the new main spine road.  Subject to approval from Yorkshire Water it is proposed that the abandoned sewer beneath Leeman Road would undergo a transfer of ownership to become a private drain.  The Agent has provided an updated position with respect to the diversion given that Yorkshire Water have raised objections.  They state that the contractors for the proposed infrastructure works are currently in dialogue with Yorkshire Water in order to finalise the design for the proposed diversionary routes and complete the Yorkshire Water Agreement.  This is a matter which is beyond the control of the Museum however it is noted that Conditions 80 and 81 of the outline planning consent seek to address this matter by requiring the developer to submit evidence to the LPA that the diversion or closure has been agreed with the relevant statutory undertaker prior to construction.  The Council are therefore satisfied that this can be appropriately dealt with through the discharge of conditions. 

Surface Water Drainage

5.90  The Drainage Report states that the proposals would increase the impermeable areas on site.  The Drainage report states that it is proposed to landscape the North Yard footpath with a permeable build up and increase soft landscaping to improve the existing drainage conditions on this part of the site.  A cellular soakaway is proposed to dispose of surface water runoff from Central Hall roof and external hardstanding areas.  Infiltration testing will therefore be completed to confirm the feasibility of infiltration techniques and if ground conditions exhibit poor infiltration then a cellular attenuation tank is proposed which will limit flows to the public sewer.

5.91  The Council’ Drainage Engineer has confirmed that there is no objection in principle on the basis that interests are covered by conditions imposed on the outline planning permission. 

5.92  Yorkshire Water have raised objection to the proposal, although they are aware that a diversion may mitigate this issue for which additional information is required and needs to be signed off by all parties.  The Council’s Drainage Engineer has stated that comments attached to the outline consent are relevant and once discharged will address the comments raised by Yorkshire Water. 

5.93  The Environment Agency have raised no objection in principle to the application on the basis that the Environment Agency’s interests are covered by conditions imposed on the outline consent. 

5.94  Having had regard to the consultation responses from the relevant Drainage Bodies, the Council are satisfied that the discharge of planning conditions attached at outline stage can provide the detail required to ensure that an appropriate drainage scheme is incorporated into the site and that there would be no additional impacts in terms of flood risk.  The proposals therefore comply with local and national policy with respect to drainage and flood risk subject to discharge of conditions.   There are therefore no further impacts beyond those identified within the OPA ES. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Air Quality

5.95 The OPA ES confirmed that taking into account Transport Assessments and Air Quality Monitoring, there would be no residual effects as a result of the York Central development from construction activities subject to implementation of construction dust mitigation measures which would be discharged through Condition 15 (CEMP).  In addition the OPA ES established that there would be no predicted residual effects as a result of the development to human or ecological receptors arising from operational traffic and that any potential impacts arising from temporary car parks would be mitigated by suitable design. 

5.96  The Environmental Compliance Statement confirms that the cumulative impact of construction in terms of noise disturbance and air quality emissions has not changed and will be controlled through a site specific Construction Environment Management Plan to be discharged through Condition 15.  It should be noted that the smaller building footprint/ floorspace will reduce the amount of construction activity and occupancy levels accounted for during the operational phase of development. 

5.97 Condition 53 was attached to the outline approval and this required that an Emission Mitigation Statement (EMS) be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.  This condition was partially discharged by Homes England/Network Rail under application AOD/22/00097.  The submitted Emissions Mitigation Statement provides a framework by which all Reserved Matters Applications will be determined through setting out a number of measures for lowering emissions and exposure to air pollution, to deliver the principles of CYC's Low Emission Planning Guidance across the site and over a number of phases of development.  The Council’s Public Protection Team confirmed that the EMS will need to be adhered to by each reserved matters application with each requiring a statement to cover the specifics of the measures which will be implemented.

5.98  The Applicants have provided an Emissions Mitigation Statement as part of this reserved matters application which sets out the specific measures to reduce air emissions which will be employed.  These measures include promoting active travel to reduce vehicle emissions, electric vehicle charging provision, reduction in building emissions, achieving BREEAM excellent through high levels of insulation, efficient building fabric and ventilation, servicing utilising modern passive design principles and installation of air source heat pumps. The Council’s Public Protection Team have confirmed that the Emissions Statement is acceptable in accordance with the requirements of Condition 53.  The proposals do not give rise to any additional impacts beyond those set out the OPA Environmental Statement.

Noise and Vibration

5.99  The Planning Statement submitted confirms that the cumulative impact of construction in terms of noise has not changed and will be controlled through a site specific Construction Environment Management Plan to be discharged through Condition 15.  Outline condition 64 relates to details of plant and machinery for non-residential premises and this will require formal discharge prior to installation.  The application includes a Noise Control Strategy for plant noise which establishes upper limits at sensitive locations within the museum site.  The noise generating equipment to be installed include air source heat pumps and any required ventilation equipment.  Plant noise emission upper limits have been set at sensitive locations within the museum site.  These include sensitive museum facades (with opening windows) and areas that may potentially be used as public external amenity space.  Identified receptors to noise are located in excess of 150m from Central Hall and by designing new  plant equipment to meet upper limits within the museum site the limits set out within the OPA ES would be comfortably be met. 

5.100 The Council’s Public Protection Officer has requested that a condition be attached relating to noise, however these matters are already covered by Condition 64 which would need to be discharged accordingly. 

Contamination

5.101 No additional contaminated land information has been submitted as part of this RMA application as appropriate contaminated land assessments were submitted and approved as part of the OPA.  In addition Condition 55 was attached at outline stage which requires that prior to commencement of each development phase or sub phase a site specific investigation and risk assessment needs to be undertaken to better understand the contamination on site.  This condition will therefore need to be discharged by the Applicants accordingly.  This assessment will then inform Condition 56 which relates to a remediation scheme being submitted.  In addition any sub soil or top soil materials being imported to the site will be analysed to ensure it is suitable for the intended use, which will be agreed with the LPA to satisfy condition 59.

5.102 Following the implementation of mitigation there will be no new or different construction effects than were reported in the OPA ES and as a result the conclusions remain valid.  The Council’s Public Protection Officer have confirmed that they have no objections as the outline planning conditions adequately deal with this matter. 

Light Pollution

5.103 Condition 22 of the OPA requires that a lighting strategy be submitted with any reserved matters application.  A Lighting Report has been submitted which sets out the anticipated approach to both internal and external lighting.  The Council’s Public Protection Team have confirmed that the strategy is accepted however have recommended that a condition be attached to ensure that a lighting spillage plan is provided to demonstrate the lighting levels at the nearest residential properties to demonstrate that they will not be adversely affected by lighting from the development. 

5.104 With respect to matters of environmental protection, the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the OPA ES which accepted any impacts subject to mitigation and a series of conditions to be discharged.  The proposals are therefore in accordance with the OPA ES and accord with national and local policies.

SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACTS

5.105 The proposals are projected to increase footfall to the museum to 1 million visitors per year.  The Council’s Economic Development Team have noted that the increase in footfall to 1 million visitors per year, will mean visitors visiting the City for one day, many for longer, boosting the local economy particularly the hospitality and cultural sectors.  Inevitably the increase in building size and variety of specialist areas will also create new jobs as well as securing the long-term future for people already employed by the Museum.

5.106 The Economic Development Team note the educational benefits of the museum which actively encourages interest in STEM subjects and the proposed Wonderlab will allow children aged between 7 and 14 to participate in engineering workshops, helping to nurture future generations of talent, some of whom will be of key benefit to burgeoning sectors already established in York. They also recognise that the NRM is integral to the development of York Central, complementing and enhancing the unique qualities of the project.  Therefore given the economic significance provided by the proposed expansion the Council’s Economic Team support this application.  

5.107 As part of the consultation for the application a number of other organisations within the City have expressed their support for the scheme in terms of the economic and education benefits it will provide. 

5.108 The proposals are in line with the socio-economic impacts set out at outline stage and accord with the policies set out above.

6.0    CONCLUSION

6.1    The principle of development of the NRM site as part of the wider York Central development was approved at outline stage and the proposals put forward within this reserved matters application are within the remits of the approved parameter plans and design guide approved by Conditions 6 and 7. 

6.2    The outline application was granted in the context that Leeman Road would be stopped up and alternative routes provided through the York Central site.  The Stopping Up of Leeman Road has been granted through a separate highway process.  As part of the Stopping Up a Walkway Agreement was approved which set out operational matters with respect to access through the museum.  This reserved matters application seeks approval for access and layout and the Council are satisfied that the proposals provide an appropriate layout and access to the site and accord with the Walkway Agreement. 

6.3    The proposals are in line with what was accepted at outline stage in terms of traffic generation, impact on the existing highway network, alternative routes for pedestrians and cyclists and parking provision.  There are also sufficient measures in place through conditions and the Section 106 attached at outline stage in order to promote sustainable travel and this is aligned with the Council’s transportation policies.  The proposals are therefore in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policies set out above. 

6.4    With respect to heritage impacts, the Council are satisfied that the proposals would not result in harm to designated heritage assets on the site.  It is recognised that delivery of Museum Square would have provided more certainty with respect to the setting of heritage assets however this is not with the control of the NRM and the Council are satisfied that this will be adequately addressed through a future reserved matters scheme for this site.  It is recognised that there will be loss of a non-designated heritage asset, however the Applicants have justified their approach to the design and loss of the mess room.  In addition the application clearly sets out the significant economic, social and cultural benefits derived from the scheme.  The Council therefore consider that the loss of this non designated heritage asset is outweighed by the significant benefits the proposals will bring not only to the City of York but also as a cornerstone of the York Central development.   With respect to archaeology appropriate investigations have been undertaken as far as they can at this stage of the development and is agreed that further investigations will be required once more of the site becomes accessible.  The Council and Historic England are therefore satisfied that an appropriate approach to archaeology is being taken.   

6.5    The proposals provide a satisfactory layout, appearance, scale and landscaping scheme which accord with the outline Design Guide and would enhance the character and appearance of this area.  Whilst sustainability and designing out crime measures have been set out, the full details of these measures will be secured through subsequent discharge of conditions. 

6.6    The application includes an appropriate update in terms of impacts on habitats and protected species within the site which remain in line with the OPA ES.

6.7    The Council are satisfied that the discharge of planning conditions attached at outline stage can provide the detail required to ensure that an appropriate drainage scheme is incorporated into the site and that there would be no additional impacts in terms of flood risk. 

6.8    The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the OPA ES which accepted impacts with respect to air quality, noise and contamination subject to mitigation and a series of conditions to be discharged.

6.9    The economic benefits arising from the scheme are recognised and the contribution the proposals will make to the City are supported by the Council’s Economic Development Team.   

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-

Location Plan NRM-FFA-ZZ-00-DR-A-01001 P2-3

Proposed Site Layout (Walkway Agreement) 201564_NRM_OP_SW_0001 Rev 05

Proposed Ground Floor Plan NRM-FFA-CH-00-DR-A-01100  P2-3

Proposed First Floor Plan NRM-FFA-CH-01-DR-A-01101 P2-3

Proposed Roof Plan NRM-FFA-CH-RF-DR-A-01102 P2-2

Proposed Museum Square Elevation NRM-FFA-CH-XX-DR-A-02101 P1-1

Proposed North Approach Elevation NRM-FFA-CH-XX-DR-A-03011 P1-1

Futures Gallery Bay Study NRM-FFA-CH-XX-DR-A-05102 P1-1

Café Bay Study NRM-FFA-CH-XX-DR-A-05101 P1-1

Proposed Long section NRM-FFA-CH-XX-DR-A-03103 P1-1

Proposed Short Section NRM-FFA-CH-XX-DR-A-03102 P1-1

Proposed Futures Gallery Section NRM-FFA-CH-XX-DR-A-03100 P2-2

Pedestrian Route Long Section SCP/210061/SK04 Rev B

Pedestrian Route Chainage SCP/210061/SK03 Rev B (Approved in so far as it relates to site levels only)

Proposed General Arrangement Soft Landscape 201564_NRM_OP_SW_0003 Rev  04

Proposed General Arrangement Hard Landscape 201564_NRM_OP_SW_0002 Rev  04

Demolition Plan NRM-FFA-CH-00-DR-A-00500 P1-1

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

2. Prior to commencement of construction above ground level details and/or samples of all external wall and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall thereafter be carried out using the approved materials.  For external walling this shall include a 1m square sample panel of the brickwork to be used on the buildings to be erected on the site which shall illustrate the colour, texture and bonding of brickwork and the mortar treatment to be used.  The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved sample panel(s) which shall be retained through the period of construction of the approved development.

Reason: In the interests of good design and visual amenity, in accordance with the NPPF.

3. Prior to commencement of construction above ground level the following details shall be submitted:

- 1:5 vertical cross section though the junction between the rotunda roof and the glazed walling, and junction of the glazing with timber panels;

- 1:5 horizontal section through the rotunda glazing and frames, and the junction of solid panels beneath, illustrating part panel and joints.

- 1:5 Vertical cross sections through the frontage elevations illustrating inter alia roof junction detail, walling and set back of window and door openings.

The details shall thereafter be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.  

Reason: In the interests of good design and visual amenity, in accordance with the NPPF.

4. Proposed details for the making good of the wall of the bullnose building following removal of the former mess room building needs to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of good design and visual amenity, in accordance with the NPPF.

5. The approved general arrangement drawing for soft landscape referenced 201564_NRM_OP_SW_0003 Rev 04  shall be implemented within a period of six months of the practical completion of the development or the earliest available planting season.  Any trees or plants whichwithin the lifetime of the 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:  The landscape scheme is integral to the amenity of the development.

6. The hard landscape works shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved general arrangement drawing for hard landscape 201564_NRM_OP_SW_0002 Rev 04. Within three months of commencement of development a product specification and details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Street furniture, gates, walls, fencing, edging, and surfacing, including colour, unit size, paving pattern/coursing, and sample materials.

Reason: The hard landscape scheme is integral to amenity and functionality of the development and outdoor space.

7. The archaeological scheme comprises 3-5 stages of work.  Each stage shall be completed and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before it can be approved.

A) No archaeological evaluation or development shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) for evaluation and a watching brief across the site has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) in writing.  The WSI should confirm to standards set by the LPA and 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 analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition 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 on the evaluation and an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any of the archaeological remains identified in the evaluation shall be deposited with City of York Historic Environment Record to allow public dissemination of results within 6 weeks of completion or such other period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

D) Where archaeological features and deposits are identified proposals for the preservation in-situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the publishing of findings shall be submitted as an amendment to the original WSI.  It should be understood that there shall be a presumption in favour of preservation in-situ wherever feasible.

E) No development (other than demolition or any enabling works that do not relate to archaeology) shall take place until:

- Details have been approved and implemented on site;

- Provision has been made for analysis, dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured;

- A copy of a report on the archaeological works described in Part D should be deposited with City of York Historic Environment Record within 3 months of completion or such other period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 16 of the NPPF.

Reason: The site lies with an Area of Archaeological Importance.  Further investigation is required to identify the presence and significance of archaeological features and deposits and to ensure that archaeological features and deposits are either recorded, or if of national importance, preserved in-situ. 

8. Prior to the buildings being brought into use, a signage strategy which shall include the design and position of notification signs for pedestrians of when access through the museum is closed to both the east and western approach to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing.  The signage shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy. 

Reason: To ensure that pedestrians are clear as to when to use alternative routes to save abortive walking distances for non-visitors to the museum.

9. Prior to the commencement of construction above ground level details of the cycle parking areas, including means of enclosure shown on Drawing 201564_NRM_OP_SW_0001-REV05, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building shall not be brought into use until the cycle parking areas and means of enclosure have been provided within the site in accordance with such approved details, and these areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of cycles.

Reason:  To promote use of cycles by both staff and visitors in the interests of sustainable travel. 

10. Once the building is brought into use, the NRM road train will not operate other than in accordance with the access arrangements approved in reserved matters application 20/00710/REMM unless alternative access arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 

11. Details of the height, type, position, angle and spread of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use.  The external lighting shall be erected and maintained in accordance with the approved details to minimise light spillage and glare outside the designated area. 

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties and the environmental qualities of the area and in the interests of designing out crime and ecology so as to ensure that lighting will not be mounted where it would directly impact on bat boxes, bird boxes or surrounding tree cover. 

12. The proposed development shall be undertaken in accordance with the biodiversity gains and recommendations set out from Paragraph 8.4.7 of the submitted Ecological Appraisal dated April 2021 by Wold Ecology.  This includes:

- Tree removal being carried out outside of bird nesting season;

- 3 Schwegler swift boxes to be installed;

- 3 Schwegler sparrow boxes to be installed;

- The Construction Management Plan to be discharged under Condition 15 including considerations on ecology and wildlife and how these will be protected throughout the build process. 

The proposed boxes to be installed prior to the building being brought into use.

Reason: In order to ensure that habitats and species are appropriately protected throughout the development.

7.0  INFORMATIVES:

STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL`S POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE APPROACH

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:

Worked with the Applicant during the course of the application to seek clarity and amendments where necessary in order to ensure that the overall layout and design was satisfactory and accords with the design parameters established at outline stage.

Contact details:

Case Officer:     Louise Milnes

Tel No:                01904 555199