Agenda item

This application is for the erection of 3no retail buildings (total floor space 1440 sq m) for Class A1 (retail), and/or Class A3 (restaurants and cafes) and/or Class A5 (hot food takeaway) with modifications to existing car park, introduction of new servicing, landscaping and highway works. [Huntington/New Earswick] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the erection of three retail buildings for class A1(retail) and or Class A3(restaurants and cafes), and/or Class A5(hot food takeaway) with modifications to the existing car park and the introduction of new servicing, landscaping and highway works.

In their update to Members, Officers stated that;

• Yorkshire Water had raised no objections to the application subject to conditions.
• The applicants preference was for the new retail building to be subdivided into no more than three units to enable two existing retailers(American Golf and Jessops) to move into the development from their existing premises in Julia Avenue.
• The data on car parking detailed in the report was four years old, but that this was used as it was considered that there had been no significant change in traffic generation and car parking patterns during that time.
• There was not a written tree survey with the application, but information submitted was considered to be sufficient.

Representations were heard from the applicant’s agent who stated that the applicant’s preference was for the new building to be subdivided into three units as indicated above, but if this was not permissible they would be prepared to accept a condition allowing subdivision to create one unit of no less than 1000 sq metres, with the remaining smaller unit used for A3/A5 uses only, as recommended by Officers.

Members asked the applicant’s agent about the provision for cyclists and pedestrians on the site. Members pointed out that there appeared to be no separation on the plans between the front of the units and the cycle lane, creating a potential danger.

The applicant’s agent replied that there would be cycle hoops installed and the existing exit onto Monks Cross Drive from the site would be closed off, and relocated further down the road.

Members asked the applicant’s agent why the removal of mature trees and the replanting of new trees in their place was necessary.

The applicant’s agent replied that new trees would have to be planted because the units would extend into the area where the current trees are situated, and that some of the existing trees were not in good condition.

Members asked whether the design of the units could be changed to include the existing trees.

The applicant’s agent responded that the original plans had been amended that the proposed new trees would accommodate the new buildings and would allow for trees to be placed along the roadside.

In relation to Members comments on traffic issues, the applicant’s agent responded that it was not considered necessary for a new survey to be conducted as there was a traffic counter at the Monks Cross Shopping Park. This indicated no significant change in the number of vehicles visiting the retail park since the parking accumulation survey was conducted in 2006.

Councillor Pierce moved refusal of the application on the grounds of the detrimental effect on city centre businesses from the new retail outlets, the unresolved parking issues and the loss of the mature trees.

Councillor Watson seconded the motion for refusal and stated that he felt there was a need for a new traffic survey to be conducted on the site.

Following further discussion it was;

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:       (i) The proposal would result in a reduction of the overall number of car parking spaces within the retail park, whilst at the same time increasing demand for parking through the creation of additional retail units/floorspace.

                                    The Transport Statement submitted with the application was supported by a parking accumulation survey, which was undertaken in July 2006. Monks Cross has seen further development in the intervening period which has further increased the attractiveness of the retail park as a destination. Observations of the car parks in operation demonstrate that demand for parking often exceeds spaces available. These observations are contrary to the conclusion of the parking accumulation survey that sufficient spare capacity remains to accommodate demand generated by the development proposals and demonstrate that the submitted survey is outdated.

The development proposed will result in an increased  demand for car parking leading to an increase in both the length and duration of vehicular trips as the hunt for available spaces becomes more difficult, thus increasing car journeys, contrary to Central Government advice contained with Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 "Transport".

(ii)               In order to allow for the development of the new pavilion and piazza area, the proposal would result in the loss of a significant number of established trees, including a number of mature oaks that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Although replacement trees are proposed for this area, the scheme would result in a much narrower belt of trees with reduced visual and landscape benefit. The replacement planting is considered to provide inadequate mitigation for the loss of an existing belt of trees that makes a significant contribution to the public amenity of the area. As such, it is considered that the proposal would conflict with the provisions of policy NE1 of the City of York Draft Local Plan, which states:

“Trees, woodlands and hedgerows, which are of landscape, amenity, nature conservation or historical value, will be protected by:

a)  refusing development proposals which will result in their loss or damage; and 10/01012/FULM Page 2 of 2.

b)  requiring trees or hedgerows which are being retained on development sites to be adequately protected during any site works; and

c)  making tree preservation orders for individual trees and groups of trees which contribute to the landscape of local amenity; and

d)  making hedgerow retention notices where appropriate to protect important hedgerows and;

e)  ensuring the continuation of green/wildlife corridors.

All proposals to remove trees or hedgerows will be required to include a site survey indicating the relative merits of individual specimens. An undertaking will also be required that appropriate replacement planting with locally indigenous species will take place to mitigate against the loss of existing trees or hedgerows. Developments should make proper provision for the planting of new trees and other vegetation including significant highway verges as part of any landscaping scheme. In addition, other proposals to bring forward such provision will be actively encouraged.”