Agenda item

Part two part three storey 12 bedroom hotel with restaurant at ground floor following part demolition of existing building. Cafe use in retained existing building (amended scheme) [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a major full application (13 weeks) from Mr Saleem Akhtar for a part two, part three storey 12 bedroom hotel with restaurant at ground floor following part demolition of the existing building with cafe use in retained existing building (amended scheme).

Officers advised that English Heritage had submitted an objection to the application on the grounds that it would have severe negative impact on the significance and setting of the city walls and an un-quantified impact on archaeology. They also noted that the development was of excessive scale.

Officers also advised that in response to the consultation, Highways had commented that it would be preferable for the parking to be perpendicular to the road for ease of use and cycle parking spaces should benefit from natural surveillance. They objected to servicing arrangements showing vehicles entering the site from Cloisters Walk.

Two further objections had been received raising concerns regarding the loss of views of and from the city walls pointing out that the walls are of international significance with upmost protection (grade 1 listed and scheduled ancient monument. The objector stated that the scheme would be unacceptable in that it would be detrimental to the setting of the walls and the “Matchbox” type design was unacceptable.

Representations were received from the architect in support of the application. He advised that he had been appointed in December 2010 to put in a revised scheme for the site after the previous scheme had been considered unsatisfactory and withdrawn. He asked that the Committee consider taking the application out of the 13 week timeframe to give him time to deal with the issues which have been raised and to have the opportunity to have structured meetings with English Heritage. He stated the time pressures were too restrictive and asked that Members agree to defer the application in order that a proper field assessment could be carried out and full discussions could take place.

Officers advised the Committee that deferral was an option and confirmed that meetings had taken place but with the previous architects. In addition pre application advice had been provided in April 2011. However they noted that the reasons for recommending refusal were fundamental issues and therefore  were not  convinced they could be overcome by deferring the application to a future meeting. They advised that during consideration of the previous scheme, which was withdrawn in September 2010, the applicant had been told a field evaluation would be required and the advice given in April 2011 was that any future re-development will need to have comparable massing to the existing buildings onsite.  They advised Members to consider, whether, if deferred, the scheme that would come back to us would be commensurate to what is  before members and if not then it would be difficult to justify a deferral. Officers felt any amended scheme would very likely be very different to the scheme here.

Members agreed that this was one of the most difficult sites in the city for development and stressed the importance of deciding whether to accept the principle of development on this site.

Councillor Gilles proposed and Councillor Galvin seconded a motion to defer the application to a future meeting. On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

Councillor Reid then proposed and Councillor Watson seconded a motion to refuse the application. The motion was carried.

Members agreed that the design and scale of the proposed development was inappropriate in the location.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                  1.         The proposed development due to its location and height would appear over-dominant over the City Walls and there would be a loss of views of and from the City Walls. The scheme would have an undue adverse impact on the setting of the Grade 1 Listed City Walls. As such the scheme is contrary to national policy established in PPS5, The Central Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal and Local Plan policies HE2, HE4 and SP3.

2          Due to the design approach, the proposed massing, materials and lack of soft landscaping, the proposed development would fail to respect its context and the proposed building would not be of the adequate architectural quality required to allow the development to preserve the character and appearance of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area. As such the scheme is contrary to national policy established in PPS1 and PPS5, The Central Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal and Local Plan policies GP1, HE2, HE3, HE4 and SP3.

3          The site is within the City Centre Area of Archaeological Importance. No archaeological field evaluation of the site to support the proposals has been submitted and as such it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact on archaeological assets of national importance. The scheme is contrary to PPS5, in particular HE6, and Local Plan policy HE10.

4          Due to the proposed servicing arrangements and configuration of the servicing/car parking area, the manoeuvring service vehicles would need to perform would have an undue adverse impact on highway safety. As such the proposals are contrary to Local Plan policy T5.

5          The proposals do not demonstrate that surface water run-off will be attenuated to 70% of the existing rate, and that there would not be an increased level of flood risk elsewhere as a consequence of the proposed development. As such the scheme is contrary to the requirements of the York 2011 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, policy GP15a of the Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 25 "Development and Flood Risk".