Agenda item

Conversion of first and part of ground floor to create 9no flats [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a full application from Mr Martin Burgess for the conversion of the first and part of the ground floor to create nine flats.

Officers advised the Committee that the following comments had been received from the applicant’s agent O’Neills.

·         Application relates to change of use of an existing building which the external changes have been approved. Tesco to open on 9.12. As such there will be no additional inhibition to Castle Piccadilly development.

·         The timescale for Castle Piccadilly is unknown, and potentially compromised by developments at Monks Cross

·         The applicants would be willing to work with Centros in the Castle Piccadilly scheme, regardless of the future of the building.

·         It is suggested the development be approved subject to a legal agreement which would keep the dwellings in single ownership and the flats would only be let on a short term basis.

·         Development is sustainable and should be approved.

Officers informed the Committee that the following comments had been submitted from Jones Lang Lasalle (on behalf of developers of Castle Piccadilly) in objection to the application.

·         Support officer’s recommendation

·         Comprehensive development of site is of significant importance to future of York centre. York’s LDF evidence base advises that if the city does not enhance its retail offer there is a risk the share of expenditure will decline having a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of the area.

·         Piecemeal proposals such as the proposal could seriously prejudice the comprehensive regeneration of Castle Piccadilly, which is of strategic importance to York in terms of reversing its declining market share.

Representations in support of the application were received from a city centre resident, who also owned and occupied premises in Castlegate and worked as a chartered survey in the property market. He made the following points.

·         Proposals would bring life back into a dormant building which had been an eyesore for a long time.

·         Tesco were due to move into the ground floor at the start of December.

·         First floor currently had permission for office lets, but due to downturn in property market, these units were not let.

·         Apart from the rented residential sector, the market was stagnant therefore first floor offices likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future.

Representations were also received from the agent in support of the application. She circulated a montage including photographs of the building and an aerial photo the position of the site within the Castle Piccadilly opportunity area, for the benefit of those members who had not been able to attend the site visit. She made the following points:

·         the proposal does not inhibit the Castle Piccadilly development due to the low cost involved in buying out the flats if needed.

·         Tesco have been offered a twenty year lease for the ground floor.

·         This scheme would not prevent the masterplan for the Coppergate extension which could still go ahead but the process is lengthy and will take years if it does go ahead. Also need to take account of the recession.

·         Client has offered to keep the flats in single ownership and let them on short term leases.

·         Several letters of support received – only one in objection.

Members expressed their support for future plans for the Castle Piccadilly area and noted officers’ arguments against the proposals due to the site being an important part of the Castle Piccadilly development and key to ensuring the development succeeds.

However they agreed that it was unfair that the owner of the property had suffered planning blight for so long as a result of future plans for the area and acknowledged that he had stated that he was willing to work with Centros on the future of area. They noted that they were not dealing with a completely empty property and that Tesco now had a 20 year lease for the ground floor of the property.

They stressed that if the application was approved, it was important  to ensure the offer made by the owner to keep the flats in  single ownership and let on short term leases was legally enforced, and a legal agreement entered into to  cover this. With the inclusion of the legal agreement, they agreed that the proposals should not inhibit the long term plans for the Castle Piccadilly development.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to ensure that the flats were retained in single ownership and delegation be given to officers to agree the necessary conditions.

REASON:

FOR APPROVAL:    The proposal, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement including an obligation to place a restriction on the legal title preventing the sale of individual flats, so that they remain in single ownership, would not be contrary to policy SP9 e) of the Development Control Local Plan which states that planning permission will not be granted for any development which could prejudice the implementation of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Castle/Piccadilly Action Area. 

The proposal would also comply with Policies GP15, L1c, ED4, H3, H4, H11 and HE3 of the City of York Council Development Control Local Plan (2005) in respect of flood risk, the provision of new open space in developments, developer contributions towards educational facilities, the conversion of upper floors to housing and the impact of the development on local amenity and the character and appearance of the conservation area.