Agenda item

Conversion of Malt House into 6no. residential units [Micklegate] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Northminster Limited for a conversion into six residential units.

Officers provided an update to Members on an updated Bat Survey, the Conservation Areas Advisory Panel (CAAP) comments on the application and further objections received since the publication of the agenda.

Updated Bat Survey

The Bat Survey from 8 June 2015 included the results of dusk and dawn surveys undertaken on 28^th May and 8^th June 2015 and an unmanned recorder in the roof of the building which were requested by the Council’s Ecology officer following the results of the Bat Scoping Survey.

The Bat Survey conclusively found that no bats roosted within the building and that there was no evidence of the use of the interior of the building by bats. The dusk and dawn activity surveys confirmed the presence of pipestrelle species of bats commuting over and past the site most likely to a roost site somewhere north of the site but not using the building itself. Bats were recorded foraging in the courtyard. Swifts were observed nesting in the eaves on the southern elevation on Lower Ebor Street.

The report had been reviewed by Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development who support the findings and recommendations of the report, including habitat enhancement. Habitat features to benefit bats could very easily be installed on the building to provide new roosting habitat as recommended in section 9.2 of the report. The inclusion of swift boxes would maintain the biodiversity interest of the development.

A condition was proposed as follows:

Bat habitat creation

No development shall take place until full details of what measures for bat mitigation and conservation are proposed and what reasonable measures are to be taken to avoid any possible impact on bats and other species during the construction phase. These should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to any work commencing.

The measures should include:

i.             Details of how the work is to be implemented including what assessments, protective measures (if any) and sensitive work practices are to be employed prior to and during construction to take account of the possible presence of bats.

ii.            Details of what provision can be made within the development to enhance the features suitable for bat roosting. Features suitable for incorporation include the use of special tiles, bricks, soffit boards, bat boxes and bat lofts.

iii.           No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved by the Council as to how Swifts are to be taken into account within the development to enhance the habitat suitable for this species.

iv.          The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timing unless otherwise approved in writing by the Council.

Reason:  To take account of and enhance habitat for a protected and  declining species.

If bats are discovered during the course of the work, then work should cease and Natural England consulted before continuing.

Informatives

Design, Conservation and Sustainable Development have also requested two informatives be added to any planning permission relating to limiting external lighting to minimise impact on bats foraging activity and that it is an offence to disturb breeding birds.

Conservation Areas Advisory Panel Comments

The Maltings have been empty for some considerable time, have remained undeveloped and have survived relatively intact.  However in view of the fact that the building could only deteriorate the Panel applauded the re-use of the building and the intention to retain many of the original features.

The Panel felt a scheme was required to ensure the features are retained and managed. Historic England’s comments were noted and endorsed.

Further Objections Received

·        Lack of community consultation on the application or on proposals for potential alternative uses of the building.

·        Concerns that the disposal of the building have not met with principles of ‘natural justice’ where decision making by the Council should be open and transparent.

·        Concerns that the car-club bay, bus passes and funds towards purchase of a bicycle for each of the first occupiers of the units is tokenistic and will not fully resolve the anticipated parking issues.

·        The desire to preserve a unique historical, cultural and archaeological building whilst retaining sufficient public access for York residents.

·        Preference for a community use for the building, supported by museum use, creative industry space and business start-up units.

·        Objection to alterations to the listed structure and rare machinery.

·        The need to consider the application for the building to be listed as an asset of community value.

·        Desire for a review of the contract of sale of the property.

·        Desire for more detailed plans.

·        Questioning of some assessment within the Archaeology and Heritage Statement.

·        Preference for affordable housing rather than market housing.

Representations in support were received from the applicant for the agent, Alastair Gill. He informed the Committee that although the building was Grade 2 listed it was in a poor condition. He added that the application would provide housing on a derelict brownfield site and that the architect had received two Civic Trust awards for his work. In regards public consultation, he informed the Committee that he and a Council Officer had given a presentation to a group of residents in March about the application.

Further representations in support were received from Ian Collins, the architect for the applicant.

He spoke about how the building needed repairs to be usable but agreed with the first speaker that he felt it provided much needed housing on a brownfield site. He confirmed that all the existing malting equipment would be staying in situ on the site.

Representations in objection were received from Andy Johnson, Chair of Clementhorpe Community Association. He felt that the application did not include adequate parking proposals, the drawings included inadequate elevations to judge the building, the presence of bats had been ignored and that the scheme was a disposal of the area’s cultural heritage. He felt that the building could have uses other than housing such as a visitor centre and could be conserved by grant or public funding. He questioned the validity of the public consultation that had taken place, such as the only reference to it being to an article on the GeniUs website.

One Member made a comment to Mr Johnson about how the building had remained empty for a number of years but that nobody from the local community had made enquiries to use it. In response, Mr Johnson stated that the Community Association did not know that it was empty until it had been sold by the Council.

Further representations in objection were received from Steven Gregory. He spoke about how the community was interested in the  application and this had been proved by the number of signatories that a petition over two days had received. He felt that Clementhorpe Community Association should be given time in order for their bid to get the Maltings listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). He added that the building was of historic importance and that the equipment should be donated to a museum rather than being kept within the building as they would be used solely for marketing purposes. He felt that if the application was granted that the dwellings should be used for social housing.

Representations were received from the Ward Member, Councillor Hayes. He informed the Committee how by applying for an ACV, this would allow Clementhorpe Community Association to return it to its former use or to a community use. He asked Members to defer the decision making process until the outcome of the Association’s bid was known.

Questions from Members related to whether the development would affect the current Grade 2 listing of the building and why the two bedroom properties had room for only one cycle store.

The Conservation Officer responded that the listing would remain and it was reported that each unit had storage on the ground floor that would accommodate more than one cycle.

Officers reported on advice they had received from the Council’s Legal department which stated that an application for a building to be listed as an ACV in their opinion was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Reid moved approval as she felt that the proposals constituted an imaginative use of the building and was reassured by what the architect had told Members. Councillor Shepherd seconded the motion.

Councillor Craghill moved deferral on the grounds that she felt that the public consultation on the future plans for the building from the Council had not been good enough. If an ACV bid was awarded to Clementhorpe Community Association this would be a six week delay, if not there would only be a three week delay until the next Committee date. Councillor Looker seconded the motion.

A vote was taken on the motion to defer the application. On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 obligation to seek a Traffic Regulation Order to provide a City Car Club Bay, and provision of sustainable transport incentives as set out within the Officer’s report and any appropriate conditions or amendments required to accommodate bats.

Reason:     The proposals are considered to have an acceptable impact on all other matters including flooding issues, introduction of residential use to the site, archaeology, transport and highways and ecology (subject to further surveys) and are in compliance with the policies of the Local Plan and with guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.