Agenda item

A major outline application for the erection of additional retail floorspace (class A1) comprising either extensions to existing stores, new buildings and/or new or extended internal first floors to existing stores. Alterations to car park layout, landscaping and associated highway works. Alterations to the  planning controls for the existing and proposed retail units to allow a maximum number of 31 units,  maximum food sales of 6,968 sq.m., minimum unit size of 455 sq.m.,a maximum of 8 units less than 455 sq.m., permit up to two large units (up to 4,645 sq.m. net sales area) to sell a broader range of goods than simply bulky goods. [Huntington and New Earswick Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a major outline application by The Monks Cross Shopping Park Trust for the erection of additional retail floor space (class A1) comprising either extensions to existing stores, new buildings and/or new or extended internal first floors to existing stores. Alterations to car park lay out, landscaping and associated highway works. Alterations to the planning controls for the existing and proposed retail units to allow a maximum unit size of 455sq.m, a maximum of 8 units less than 455.sq.m, permit up to two large units (upto 4,645 sq.m net sales area) to sell a broader range of goods than simply bulky goods.

Officers provided an update including the following information:

·        Paragraph 1.2, the floor area should read 29,408 sq.m.

·        The number of objectors and supporters of the scheme had been updated the previous evening and there were now 1793 objectors and 42 in support. The comments in the  letters of support and objection were similar to those précised in the committee report apart from a letter from Fenwick, a department store in the City Centre which included a technical advisory document from Turley Associates and expressed concern about the impact of the development on the Coppergate Centre.

·        On the issue of objections, the applicants agent had raised concerns about the lack of reference in the committee report to the community feedback report produced in January 2012 which had highlighted support for the scheme.

·        The transport reason for refusal had not been clearly worded and had been replaced (which can be found at the end of this minute item).

Representations were heard from 10 people in respect of this application and the following application putlined at agenda item 4b, as follows:

Phillip Crowe spoke in objection on behalf of York Tomorrow. He advised that the Castle Picadilly site had been in limbo for some time since the previous plans had been rejected. He argued that the approval of this application would affect the viability of the Castle Picadilly site due to the cumulative effect of out of town retail on the city centre.

James Owens of LaSelle Venture Fund, which is behind Castle Picadilly, spoke in objection. He stated that the Monks Cross applications mean a major increase in floor space and the removal of controls to allow a wider variety of goods to be sold. He advised that the city centre share of York’s retail industry had already fallen and the Monks Cross developers had not shown that the new shops cannot be accommodated in the city centre.

Paul Thompson the owner of Barnitts, a city centre store, spoke in objection to the proposals. He raised concerns about the offer of free parking at Monks Cross compared to expensive parking charges in the city centre.

John Haewood a local resident, spoke in objection. He raised concerns about the dip in trade in the city centre and urged Members to vote for a sustainable future for York, not unsustainable.

Colin Hall a local resident spoke in support of the application. He advised that it is important to bring investment and job opportunities to the City.

Andrew Collier from Indigo Planning spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that currently, the units at Monks Cross are not the correct size or configuration for many of the retailers as they are either undersized or oversized. There are concerns that some existing retailers will not sign a new lease. The application is primarily to provide more flexibility at the Monks Cross site to safeguard its future and jobs.

Tim Waring also for Indigo Planning spoke to advise that the timing of the scheme was unfortunate as it had come before Members at the same time as the Community Stadium application. He asked Members to consider that the application is modest and is being made to respond to current retailer needs. He outlined what was being sought including additional controls such as a cap on the maximum number of units to 31, a cap on food sales,  mezzanines will be controlled by conditions and 4 further small units.

Councillor Hyman spoke as Ward Member for Huntington and New Earswick Ward. He advised that he had concerns about the application as 16 more car parking spaces over all was not enough and he was unhappy about the loss of trees.

Councillor Runciman spoke as Ward Councillor for Huntington and New Earswick Ward. She raised concerns about the likely increase in traffic if Monks Cross is expanded and the impact on local residents. She had particular concerns about patrons of Monks Cross blocking residents driveways.

Members questioned the applicant and the registered speakers and commented on aspects of the application including:

·        Phillip Crowe was asked to clarify exactly what his group would like to see happen at Castle Piccadilly. He confirmed that the York Tomorrow group would like to see a major public amenity on the site and in regard to his objections to past proposals the large size and scale had been an issue not the commercial development aspect.

·        Members discussed the proposed financial contribution from the applicant towards transport arrangements, in particular the arrangements for a bus service to Monks Cross from residential areas and villages.

·        It was queried whether the applicant expected to attract smaller retailers. It was confirmed that existing Monks Cross retailers are keen to downsize their units rather than create smaller units for the purpose of attracting smaller retailers. The aim was to retain existing stores.

·        Some Members queried why the applicant had a different opinion on what can be done on the site under current conditions relating to maximum units and floor space to that of Planning Officers and drew attention to pages 41 to 46 of the report which outlined the fall back position (i.e. what the applicant could do without planning permission). Officers confirmed that discussions had been ongoing with the applicant in relation to the proposals put forward and permitted development. The applicant had offered various amendments but had chosen to have the scheme determined as submitted.

Members moved into debate and made the following comments:

·        Opponents to the scheme are ‘over egging’ their case and it should be acknowledged that the people of York shop in both the City Centre and Monks Cross.

·        Some Members felt that the application was not sustainable due to the majority of people accessing the site by car.

·        It was considered by some Members a difficult application to consider when the plans in the committee report no longer reflect what is being asked for by the applicant on the day.

·        Some Members commented that they could see both sides of the arguments put forward by the speakers. Although there would be an impact on the city centre they felt that York also has to progress to compete with new developments in nearby cities such as Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle.

·        Members commented it would be useful for a revised application to come before them at a later date so Members can fully understand the changes being proposed.

Following consideration of the cumulative impact of all 3 applications on the agenda, refusal was moved and seconded. Following a vote it was resolved that:

RESOLVED:                That the application be refused.

REASONS:              1.Retail floor space in an out-of-town location, together  with amendments to existing  planning controls to allow the introduction of additional smaller units and creation of 2 large units selling an unrestricted range of goods, is unacceptableby virtue of  its impact on the ability to secure investment in vacant buildings and spaces in the city centre and particularly the Castle Piccadilly site, which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority is suitable and available for development. It is also considered that the development will have significant adverse impacts on planned investment in, and the vitality and viability of, the city centre. The proposed development is therefore contrary to advice within the National Planning Policy Framework published on the 27^th March 2012; the objectives set out in of the City of York Core Strategy Submission (publication version 2011) in particular policies SP1, SP3, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS15 and CS17 and policies SP7b, SP9, SP10, S1, S2 and YC1 of the Development Control Local Plan (approved for development control purposes April 2005).

2.   It is considered that the adverse effect on investment and employment in the City Centre that would result from the development would not be outweighed by employment generated on site by the development. In addition the development represents a sequentially unjustified expansion of out of town shopping, contrary to national and local planning policy; maintains unsustainable travel choices; and hinders the promotion of fairness and inclusion through the enhancement of out of town facilities to the detriment of investment in the city centre. Overall the development does not achieve sustainable solutions in an economic, social or environmental context and is therefore contrary to the advice within the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires such dimensions to be taken into account  in assessing the sustainability of development, and the aims and objectives set out in of the City of York Core Strategy Submission (publication version 2011).

3. The application relies on a proportionate increase in the use of   sustainable modes of transport by visitors to the development site in order to minimise the vehicular impact of the development in terms of traffic generation and car parking demand. The site is not currently served by direct high frequency public transport services from areas of the city where demand will be generated. It is not considered that such an uplift in public transport use can be achieved solely through implementation of the submitted framework travel plan. The funding to provide the required additional or enhanced public transport to enable this would only be achieved either through the implementation of car park charges, (a proportion of which will be ring-fenced to sustainable travel initiatives) or the payment of a sufficient contribution. The increased offer that would be available at the destination would draw custom from a wider area and given the lack of viable and realistic sustainable travel  alternatives lead to a greater reliance on the private car. Furthermore the application proposes to remove an insulated public transport corridor in order to increase the level of car parking available, placing the emphasis on increasing the availability of car parking over the need to improve other transport links including improvements the remaining insulated public transport corridor and  consideration of the provision  of appropriately designed cycle hubs. The proposed development is therefore consideredcontrary to advice within the National Planning Policy framework published on the 27^th March 2012, in particular paragraphs 32 and 34 to 37 and the objectives set out in section 15 of the City of York Core Strategy Submission (publication version 2011) and supporting documents including the Local Transport Plan approved by the Council on the 7^th April 2007 and SP7a of the Development Control Local Plan approved for development control purposes April 2005.