Agenda item

Installation of automatic ticket gates, glazed barriers, associated CCTV cameras and signage, alterations to chaplain’s office, formation of passageway from short stay car park to Inner Concourse, provision of ATM booths, relocation of various booths and kiosks and associated building works [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for Listed Building Consent for the installation of automatic ticket gates, glazed barriers, associated CCTV cameras and signage, alterations to the chaplain’s office, the formation of passageway from the short stay car park to the Inner Concourse, the provision of ATM booths, relocation of various booths and kiosks and associated building works.

Officers reminded Members that this was an application for Listed Building Consent and not a planning application. They confirmed that the majority of proposed works were inside the station building and did not require planning permission with outside works covered by permitted development rights and referred Members to Section 16 of the Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Officers circulated an list of updates and briefed Members on these changes. They reported two corrections to the report as follows:

• Paragraph 3.15 – Date of CABYS letter should read 8.1.2009
• Paragraph 4.19 – insert date of 31.5.2009

They also advised Members that 6 further representations had been received expressing the following views that were material to the consideration of the listed building consent application

·        Transient nature of franchise should not mar character the station

·        Symbol of York

·        Unacceptable visual intrusion adversely affecting the character and appearance of the station contrary to policy HE4.

They also reported that on 14 July 2009 they received a letter from York Civic Trust which stated that changes to the proposal “has largely met our previous objections, and the overall benefits in visual terms now outweigh the introduction of new ticket gates. We would however expect that the gating scheme would only be acceptable in it is associated with the other aspects of the overall proposal”

A letter which had been submitted by Councillor David Scott was circulated at the meeting. This urged Members to refuse the application for several reasons and asked Members to consider the visual impact of the proposed barriers on the station which he stated would be out of context for the building.

A statement had been received from the Public Affairs and Stakeholder Manager, on behalf of National Express East Coast and circulated to Members but the Chair advised Members to disregard it as it contained information on station management issues and revenue protection which could not be considered in respect of the Listed Building Consent application.

The Chair invited the Council’s Senior Assistant Solicitor to address the meeting. The Solicitor had prepared a briefing note which had been circulated at the beginning of the meeting to Committee Members and members of the public. He reminded those present that this was not a planning application but as the station was a listed building, the applicant required Listed Building Consent in order to carry out the proposed works. He explained that it was necessary to consider the effect of the proposed works on the listed building and referred to the briefing note to explain what issues could be taken into account in reaching a decision on the application. The briefing note is attached as Annex 1 to the minutes.

Representations were received from the Chairman of York Environment Forum in objection the application. He made the following points:

• Statement of Community Involvement has been disregarded
• Interpretation of PPG15 is unreasonable and incorrect
• Evidence of substantial benefits to the community not proved
• Although officers make it clear that station management issues cannot be considered, these are included in the report and will have influenced Members - to exclude challenges to them is to deny natural justice. 
• Interpretation and analysis of Draft Local Plan which specifies that no adverse effect on the character or appearance of a listed building can take place.
• Impact on how the building works, in respect of movement within the building, has been ignored

Representations in objection were also received from a representative of the Campaign against Barriers at York Station (CABYS) She spoke with regard to the interpretation of PPG15 and voiced the view that the justification offered by National Express was an inadequate response to the requirement as stated in PPG15 to “justify why the proposed works are either desirable or necessary” and that they had therefore failed to provide “a convincing case”.

A further representation against the application was received from a York resident. She referred to the beauty and distinctiveness of the sweeping Victorian architectural grandeur of York Station and stated that ticket barriers would be ugly,  unnecessary and costly. She reminded Members that the station was built to be enjoyed by people and to be a useable functional building therefore it was necessary to consider the impact on station users and retain its openness so it could continue to provide freedom of movement and ease of access.

The Public Affairs and Stakeholder Manager spoke on behalf of National Express East Coast in support of the application. He advised Members that the company were committed to developing stations sensitively and that they had the support of York Civic Trust, English Heritage and Visit York. He reported that listed building consent has been granted recently at Newcastle, Durham and Darlington stations for the introduction of barriers and Durham Station which is a listed building had been awarded station of the Year. He stated that it was important that stations should remain fully functional rather than becoming museums. He confirmed that they had worked with planning officers regarding the proposals and their corporate vision was for a progressive, modern, transport intersection where heritage is preserved and enhanced.

The Council’s Conservation Architect advised Members that in coming to a decision on whether to approve or refuse the application, they needed to determine whether or not the proposals adversely affect the special architectural and historic aspect of the station.

During debate Members discussed the following issues:

• Barriers were first installed in the 1930s and removed in 1984 when the travel centre was built. Barriers were in place when the building was listed.
• significant changes have been made to the internal appearance of the station in the past such as the large display boards, corporate signage etc and this could be considered more intrusive than the current proposals.
• Although barriers have been introduced in other stations, this doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right choice for York as York station is unique. 
• Some of the proposals such as removal of ATM machines and relocation of catering kiosks from the inner concourse would open up the vista across the concourse and therefore improve the station
• Question of whether barriers detract from view – mixed views on this issue.
• View of several Members that barriers would be detrimental to character and ambience of the station due to their size, location and materials used.

[The meeting was adjourned at 5.20pm and resumed at 5.30pm.]

RESOLVED:            

That the application be refused for the reason below. 1

REASON:                 

The design, location and materials of the proposed gates and barriers would have a serious adverse effect on the Grade 2* Listed Building by reason both of their incongruity with the existing structure and the detracting effect they would have on its unique character. This would be contrary to policy HE4 which states that consent will only be granted for internal alterations to listed buildings where there is no adverse effect on the character and appearance of the building and also contrary to advice contained within paragraphs 3.12 and 3.13 of PPG15 “Planning and the Historic Environment”