Agenda item

A major full application for the erection of an 8,000 seat community stadium, leisure centre, multi-screen cinema, retail units, outdoor football pitches, community facilities and other ancillary uses, together with associated vehicular access, car parking, public realm, and hard and soft landscaping following demolition of existing structures at Huntington Stadium Jockey Lane Huntington York YO32 9JS. [Huntington & New Earswick Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major full application by Wrenbridge Sport York Limited and GLL for the erection of an 8,000 seat Community Stadium, leisure centre, multi-screen cinema, retail units, outdoor football pitches, community facilities and other ancillary uses, together with associated vehicular access, car parking, public realm, and hard and soft landscaping following demolition of existing structures.

Officers gave an update to the committee report, the main points were as follows:

·        The Highways Agency has formally lifted its temporary non-determination notice (TR110) preventing determination of the planning application. Lifting of the notice is subject to three planning conditions being attached to the planning permission (provision of shuttle buses, parking management plan and travel plan).  The proposed conditions correspond with conditions already proposed by the council’s Highways officers.  The lifting of the Direction enables the officers’ recommendation on page 1 of the report to be amended by the deletion of paragraph (iii).

·        Since publication of the committee report,  five further objections to the application had been received.  One was from the owner of the York City Knights rugby club. It was reported that most issues had been covered in the report. Since the report was published there had been a total of 69 comments received bringing totals to 97 in support, 34 objections and 17 general representations.

·        The Foss Internal Drainage Board (IDB) had not withdrawn their objection, which was based on drainage proposals as initially submitted. The objection related to drainage capacity problems downstream of the site.  The IDB argue that the details of the downstream drainage system, as-built, are not known and that the application should not be approved until further information is available.  However, their officers had not yet examined the latest drainage proposals for the application, which showed that surface water run-off would be attenuated, within the application site, to 70% of existing.  This attenuation would improve any pre-existing capacity constrains downstream. The proposed drainage arrangements for the application meet all drainage design methods and standards.  The council’s flood risk management officers are satisfied that, subject to their recommended conditions being attached to any approval, the development would have no detrimental flood risk or drainage impact on the downstream drainage system.

·        Monks Cross Shopping Park would like to ensure that measures are put in place to deal with traffic and parking demands and requested that Monks Cross Shopping Park be included in the travel plan management group.

·        The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit is recommending that a condition be attached requiring provision of compensatory mitigation measures to offset emissions generated as a consequence of the development. 

·        An updated document detailing suggested conditions was also circulated and is attached to the online agenda for this meeting for information.

John Guilford had registered to speak in objection to the current application. He advised that he supported the principle of a community stadium but felt that the application before Members was not the same concept as originally agreed in 2012. He referred to the increase in the commercial aspect of the scheme and considered this a move away from the scheme being a community stadium. In relation to the York City Knights he felt that the rugby club would not have the same facilities as agreed to previously. He also felt that there would be parking problems at the site.

Jack Stearman had registered to speak on behalf of York City Knights he advised that he is employed by York City Knights and that he was in support of a community stadium which would enable the rugby club to continue its work with children. He referred to the opportunities open to children of all ages to receive rugby coaching and how over 600 children in the area had benefitted from coaching in recent years. He advised he was in support of a community stadium which worked for both the rugby club and the football club.

Councillor Brian Watson had registered to speak with general comments. He raised some concerns about the impact of another cinema on city centre cinemas and also the impact of more out of town retail development on city centre shops. He questioned if the current scheme was still a community stadium for the rugby and football clubs when there is so much commercial interest in the scheme.

Ian Yeowart spoke on behalf of York Motor Sports Village. He advised that he welcomed the stadium and that the current stadium is run down and in need of improvement. He considered that parking would be a problem wherever the stadium is located and that the number of spaces being provided is adequate.

Paula Stainton spoke on behalf of the York City Football Club foundation. She advised that since the club had been in league 2 and since the approval in 2012 for a community stadium, the club had expanded its programmes significantly. As well as sports the club offers a social inclusion programme and raises awareness and funds for local charities. A lot of activities take place away from Bootham Crescent due to a lack of facilities there and a new stadium would mean better opportunities. Without the foundation 1500 people per week would miss out and urged Members to approve the application.

Frank Ormston spoke on behalf of York Minstermen, a supporters club. He advised that the planning application is a turning point for both the rugby club and the football club and that both clubs had been on the edge of ruin but had survived due to the many supporters. He hoped the stadium would provide stable foundations for both clubs and thanked the Council for getting the stadium to this point. Supporters want to see both clubs continue to prosper and urged members to support the scheme.

Fiona Williams spoke on behalf of Explore Libraries. She advised that the proposed library located at the stadium would provide a traditional library space alongside a wide range of digital services for use by the local community. Joining the stadium project would allow  services to develop and benefit the local community.

Pat Crowley spoke on behalf of the York Teaching NHS Foundation Trust. He advised that the Trust would be involved as tenants at the Stadium and would utilise the space to deliver local and accessible services. The creation of a facility at the stadium site would relieve pressure on other NHS resources in the city.

Jason McGill, Chairman of York City Football Club spoke to advise that should the application not be approved then the club would have to close. He detailed the financial arrangements made in 2004 to buy Bootham Crescent back from the previous Directors which involved a £2m loan from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF) which will need to be repaid by October 2015 should the new stadium not go ahead. The FSIF had indicated the £2m could become a grant if the Club secured new facilities. He referred to the poor conditions at Bootham Crescent and the level of work needed to bring it up to standard and the fact that the Club does not have the money to carry out the necessary works. The Community Stadium would ensure the club’s survival as well as provide excellent opportunities for the local community.

Gary Hall spoke on behalf of York City Knights Independent Supporters’  Society. He referred to the Knights’  history and the fact that the stadium is vital to the development of the club going forward. Without the stadium amateur sport for future generations of the city would not be viable.

Chris Symons spoke on behalf of the applicant GLL. He advised that GLL was the largest sport and leisure charity in the UK and the scheme was a flagship nationally as the biggest of its kind. It was a long term vision of the Council to get new facilities for the site and GLL had worked hard to ensure it is deliverable. Some of the best architects in the country had worked on the design. The facilities being proposed do include the Rugby Club despite an agreement not being reached with them at present. He referred to the wider benefit for the community with new jobs being created and new facilities.

Daniel Brown spoke on behalf of Wrenbridge as the agent. He referred to the officers’ favourable comments, and provided additional information on the sequential test process undetaken. In reference to other sites within the city he advised that Hungate was not appropriate for a stadium due to the proximity to residential flats. In relation to the Castle Piccadilly and York Central sites, the timescales for those sites were not consistent with the need for the Stadium to be delivered within the next calendar year.

Tim Atkins the Council’s Community Stadium Project Manager spoke to advise that York as a City can deliver on most things, but not currently on sport. The stadium would be a destination which would bring together sport, wellbeing and learning with a complimentary mix of commercial uses. The NHS involvement would provide physiotherapy facilities. The site would not just cater for the football and rugby clubs as a number of local organisations would also benefit from the new opportunities being created. He asked members to focus on the planning matters and not the financial aspects of the scheme and to approve the application.

Members asked a number of questions, in particular:

·        The details included in the stadium travel plan and whether the control measures such as a shuttle bus from York Station and the amount of on-site car parking were enough in relation to the proposed 8,000 seat capacity. Officers confirmed that a detailed plan had been drawn up and that they were satisfied that the proposals were sufficient. Members asked that motorcycle parking be included at the site.

·        Whether officers were satisfied that the sequential test had been properly applied. They confirmed they were satisfied.

·        Whether hours of use for the stadium had been considered as a condition. Officers advised that they did not want to restrict the hours of operation in case of sporting events over-running.

Following further discussion, Members entered debate and made the following points:

·        Some Members still had reservations about some aspects of the proposed travel plan but were happy that the conditions being proposed would mitigate against any problems as far as possible.

·        Some Members had concerns regarding the financial aspects of the scheme but acknowledged that these issues were not planning matters and therefore could not be considered.

·        Members were pleased to see the health and wellbeing partners involved in the scheme and the benefits to the local community.

·        Talks about a new stadium had been ongoing for a number of years and Members were pleased to see the application finally coming forward.

·        Most Members supported the scheme and hoped that the issues between the two sports clubs would be resolved satisfactorily going forward.

Councillors Boyce, Burton, Funnell, Gunnell, Horton, McIlveen and Simpson Laing asked that their votes in support of the application be recorded in the minutes.

Councillor Warters asked that his abstention from the vote be recorded in the minutes.

Resolved:           That Members agreed:

(i)           That delegated authority be given to the assistant director of Development Services, Planning and Regeneration following the expiry of the publicity period on the 31^st March 2015 to:

(ii)          To consider any new material planning considerations received during the publicity period in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair and if satisfied that these issues do not alter the recommendation of approval;

(iii)        To refer the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under the requirements of Article 5 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 and should the application not be called in by the Secretary of State then

(iv)    Approve the application subject to conditions listed in the report and the officer update.

Reason:              It is considered that the scheme would provide extensive and comprehensive sports, leisure and community facilities that would effectively replace and significantly enhance the provision of such facilities in the city.  The scheme would also generate additional employment opportunities both during construction and on completion.

The principle of a new community stadium to be built at Monks Cross was established by the grant of outline planning permission for a 6,000-seat stadium.

The proposal is acceptable from a planning policy perspective.  It is considered that the benefits of the scheme significantly outweigh the limited environmental, traffic generation and retail impacts, which are identified in this report and which in part can be mitigated through measures secured by planning conditions.