Agenda item

Erection of part 3 part 4 storey hotel with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing office building [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application, received from The Villas Venture, for the erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey hotel with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of the existing office building.

Officers circulated an update at the meeting, which set out the following (the full update is attached to the agenda for this meeting):

• Confirmation that revised plans had been received which clarified material and delivery details and drawings showing that vehicles could turn and leave the site in a forward gear.
• Objections received from the Micklegate Planning Panel in respect of traffic management, building massing, community safety and lack of community involvement/consultation.
• Additional Conditions relating to construction of roads and footpaths, removal of redundant crossing, carriageway and footway widening and a method of works statement.
• Highways revised comments confirming that the hotel use would lead to a reduction in traffic generated by the site and that the hotel would not be eligible for on street parking permits. Also confirmation that Lowther Terrace would be widened to 4.1m (confirmed as 4.5m at the meeting) to accommodate two way traffic.
• Amendment to Condition 7 requesting large scale details and Condition 10 requiring coverage of the cycle store.
• Comments of the Environmental Protection Unit suggesting additional conditions regarding vehicle delivery hours, limiting noise levels in bedrooms and land contamination.
• Photomontages of the development as seen from Holgate Road/Lowther Terrace.
• Extract from the minutes of the Micklegate Ward Committee meeting held on 9 June 2011, when consideration had been given to the planning application.

Representations were received from the Chair of CAMLOW Residents’ Association expressing concerns at possible traffic levels in relation to the proposed development. She pointed out that there would be an increase in vehicles accessing the site via Lowther Terrace and that the parking arrangements were inadequate resulting in pressure on residents parking in the vicinity. Concerns were also expressed regarding delivery vehicles and to the proposed increase in road width causing safety issues for children and vulnerable tenants.

A local resident went onto make representations at the lack of consultation in relation to the application. She also referred to safety concerns that arose from the proposal to amend traffic on Lowther Terrace to two way. Other concerns related to light pollution, problems arising from the demolition of the existing building and use of the hotel by racing clientele.

A further local resident confirmed that although their area had suffered from a number of problems the community had worked together to provide a safe environment for all residents. She pointed out that this proposal would be detrimental to the community in general and referred to existing drainage problems, which this development would exacerbate.

A representative of the North Yorkshire Committee of the national cyclists organisation CTC referred to the inclusion of Lowther Terrace as part of a quiet cycle route between the A59 corridor and the station, avoiding Blossom Street. He stated that, if approved, this application would generate as yet unquantified levels of additional vehicle journeys along Lowther Terrace. He stated that despite the proposal to increase the road width that this would still remain below the recommended standard in respect of cyclists being passed by wide bodied vehicles. He therefore requested the Committee to refuse the application on safety grounds.

Representations were received from a representative of the Micklegate Planning Panel, who also declared an interest as a tenant of Holgate Villas. He expressed concerns on behalf of residents at the lack of engagement with the local community, access to the site by large vehicles, community safety and the scale and massing of the building.

A representative of the Older People’s Assembly also made representations as tenants of Holgate Villas. He confirmed that most points had already been covered but referred to the short period of notice for tenants and requested assurances that both the developer and the Council would endeavour to assist them in their relocation. 

The developer assured members that neither his Architect nor himself had been invited to attend the Micklegate Ward Committee or any consultation meetings and he expressed surprise at the objections raised. He pointed out that the existing building was outdated and now let on short term lease but that this was unsustainable in the long term. Confirmation was received that no tenants would be required to leave until their lease expired and that they would try to assist with their relocation. He went onto describe the type of hotel and facilities proposed and landscaping plans for the site.

Members then questioned a number of aspects of the scheme including:

• Details of the cladding materials.
• Why the policy on community involvement did not appear to have been carried out in respect of this application.
• Further details of traffic movements, including coaches and service vehicles.
• Details of the cycle/pedestrian route through to the station and NCP car park. Confirmation that the developer had provided land to accommodate cycle track access to the station.
• Disposal of demolition materials. Confirmed that this would follow national guidelines, which included the recycling.
• Clarification on restaurant/bar usage and coaches using Lowther Terrace. Confirmation that the developers would accept a condition specifying that coach drop off and pick ups would take place at Queen Street/NCP car park and not in the vicinity of the hotel.
• Need for the provision of a hatched box restriction at the entrance to Lowther Terrace and accompanying waiting restrictions.

Members then questioned the possibility of delaying further consideration of the application to allow engagement with the community prior to the Committee making a decision. The applicant confirmed that, although he felt that there were no grounds on which the application could be refused, he was happy to defer further consideration pending further consultation.

Following discussion it was

RESOLVED: That consideration of this application be deferred to allow Officers to undertaken further consultation. ^1.

REASON:To allow full consultation to be undertaken on this application prior to a decision being made.