Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of a retail warehouse following the demolition of an existing office building (resubmission). [Huntington and New Earswick Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major outline application, submitted by Smith and Ball LLP, for the erection of a retail warehouse following the demolition of an existing office building (resubmission).

The applicants circulated the following information and photographs:

·        Photographs of Arabesque House and Triune Court.

·        An aerial photograph of the site location

·        Site layout and the elevation for the scheme.

·        Arabesque House was an dated office building which did not meet potential office occupier’s requirements unlike adjacent Triune Court.

·        Arabesque House had 1 unit which had been vacant for 3 years with other tenants looking to relocate to Triune Court.

·        The loss of office space at Arabesque House would not be significant loss.

·        There was already strong interest from a number of bulky goods operators to secure premises at Monks Cross, which the Retail Study confirmed that it lacked.

·        This would be a sustainable development and provide real growth for the city in both construction and permanent jobs.

Officers updated with the following information:

·        Paragraph 1.3 should refer to a 200 space car park not 238 spaces.

·        Receipt of a letter from O’Neill Associates the applicant’s agent, in relation to certain statements and omissions in the Committee report (full details of which have been attached to the agenda as an annex).

Representations were then received from the applicant’s agent who referred to the aerial photograph showing retail development to the south and east and offices to the north on the Monks Cross site. She confirmed that the existing offices were out dated with no raised floors for IT networking, no air conditioning, a concealed entrance and were inefficient in energy use.

Members went onto question a number of aspects of the report, including:

·        Confirmation received that the proposed retail warehouse was not speculative as without a named tenant the investment for the development could not be raised.

·        Details of vacant office space at Triune Court.

·        Further details of tenants looking to relocate from Arabesque House.

·        That the issues raised by the applicants were members felt a result of the present economic climate rather than the building being outdated.

A number of Members confirmed that the present building was internally in a good state of repair and that the officer’s recommendation to refuse permission was correct in this instance. They also pointed out that Monks Cross was a key employment area well served by public transport and should be retained.

Other Members expressed concerns that it was unfair that property owners had to bear the burden and that members should defer to businesses and market forces.

Following further discussion it was

RESOLVED:     That the application be refused.

REASON:          In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority Monks Cross is a good office location, having a wide range of amenities and sustainable travel, including park & ride and cycle routes, to and from the city centre, the Local Planning Authority consider that it needs to maintain a menu of office properties around different sites in the city, of varying sizes and quality, the application site is important in providing for the immediate and longer term employment requirements of York, particularly the Monks Cross area. It is considered that the loss of Arabesque House will significantly diminish the availability of office space in the Monks Cross area to the detriment of employment Land supply and future employment growth, this is considered contrary to policy E3b of the City of York draft Local Plan (incorporating the 4th set of changes) Development Control Local Plan (April 2005), the evidence base to the emerging Local Development Framework; Employment Land Review Stage 1 and 2 (Entec 2007 and 2009) and Arup Employment Paper - Annex 4 to Item 13, LDF Working Group, 4 October 2010 and contrary to Planning Policy Statement 4 "Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth”.