Agenda item

A major outline application for the erection of two buildings (Block G and Block H) to comprise either residential units (use class C3), residential institution/elderly accommodation (use class C2), or a mixture of the two and flexible commercial uses (within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 or D2) and associated infrastructure works. A full application for erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block D) comprising 186 residential units; erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block F) comprising 101 residential units, community centre (use class D1) and multi-storey car park; development of new public spaces (St John's Square and Friar's Quay) and riverside walk and associated infrastructure works. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major outline application by Hungate (York) Regeneration Limited for erection of two buildings (Block G and Block H) to comprise either residential units (use class C3), residential institution/elderly accommodation (use class C2), or a mixture of the two and flexible commercial uses (within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 or D2) and associated infrastructure works. Full application for erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block D) comprising 186 residential units; erection of part 5/part 6/part 7 storey building (Block F) comprising 101 residential units, community centre (use class D1) and multi-storey car park; development of new public spaces (St John's Square and Friar's Quay) and riverside walk and associated infrastructure works.

Officers circulated a lengthy update to the committee report, full details of which are attached to the online agenda for this meeting, the main points were as follows:

·        A policy update provided by City Development  to confirm that the Council’s calculations accord with the applicant’s statement that up to 10,400 sqm of B1a office space could be provided in this part of the city.

·        Safer York Partnership – the applicant confirmed a meeting had taken place with the police Architectural Liaison Officer and the only remaining issue was the open spaces of St Johns Square and Friars Quay within the development.

·        Bus stop improvements -  Paragraph 4.95 of the Officers report should refer to improvements to the bus stops at Peasholme Green rather than Jewbury.

·        Community facilities (revisions to text) - £100k commuted payment towards the development of integrated and jointly managed community facilities at Central Methodist Chapel on St. Saviourgate and the on-site community space and the transfer of completed on site community space to an appropriate management organisation as agreed by City of York Council in consultation with the Hungate Development Community Trust and the Central Methodist Chapel.

·        Public Art  - arts projects, works deriving from archaeology on the site and use of local artists to design elements of the scheme should be considered by the applicant.

·        Additional conditions - Officers requested that if Members were minded to approve the application that delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director for minor amendments to the wording of conditions to take account of potential phasing issues.

Officers then advised of a number of other issues that had arisen since the committee report and update had been issued to Members as follows:

·        Factual errors in the committee report - in reference to page 47 of the agenda, the text “Stonebow / Hungate Highways Street Improvement works £307,000” should be deleted.  These works were not being secured by the Section 106 agreement but would be secured through Condition 27 and would be delivered at the developers expense through a S278 Highways agreement.

·        An amendment to the text of Condition 27 to include reference to the provision of public art.

·        On page 47 of the agenda, under the heading of Highways, it should state “bus pass to be provided to each occupier” rather than a commuted sum payment.  The £264,000 is an overall cost to inform the viability appraisal.

·        Archaeology is to be dealt with through the Section 106 rather than through a condition.

David Fraser had registered to speak on behalf of York Civic Trust. He advised that following the previous phases of the development,  the Trust considered the application to be over development of the site. He praised the architects who he felt had produced a well designed scheme but questioned whether it was suitable within the medieval walls of York. He felt that the development should show regard for the scale and massing of its neighbours and that the citizens of York deserved a development which would enhance the historic environment.

Richard Cook had registered to speak for the applicant. He advised that a revised masterplan had been produced over the last 18 months which had learnt from the previous phases and addressed the current market conditions and focused heavily on improving the public realm areas. As a result a predominantly residential scheme was now being proposed with substantially improved public areas. The development will be highly sustainable.

Councillor Craghill had registered to speak as Ward Member. She raised concerns about the lack of provision for family housing and the height and massing of the scheme, particularly the blocks overlooking Stonebow. She advised that she welcomed play spaces and also questioned whether areas of the site would benefit from controlled parking and traffic regulation orders.

Members questioned the Officers and speakers on a number of points as follows:

·        In relation to the suggested additional condition in the officers’  update relating to the landscaping scheme, a Member queried whether the words ‘within a period of five years’ could be removed to ensure that landscaping is continually maintained.

·        The lack of affordable family housing. The applicant confirmed that in previous phases, the family houses had failed to sell and had subsequently been split into apartments  so this phase would include a number of larger 3 bedroomed apartments rather than houses.

·        Some members raised concerns about the cost of the service charge to residents and implications for the affordability of the homes.

·        Concerns were raised over the potential for disruption to residents in the area during the construction period following a number of complaints during the previous construction periods at Hungate. Some Members queried whether a phone number direct to the Council’s Planning Enforcement team could be provided to residents but this was not considered appropriate as it was the applicant’s responsibility to address any immediate concerns and an out of hours planning enforcement service was not feasible . It was agreed that Officers would look into the possibility of receiving a regular update from the applicant on any complaints from residents in order to monitor the situation.

Following further discussion members agreed to:

Resolved:

(i)Defer pending satisfactory completion of a  Section 106 Agreement to secure the following

(a) Affordable Housing

(b) Open Space

(c) Highway Works and Sustainable Transport measures

(d) Community Facilities,

and if not otherwise secured by way of condition, any required archaeological works and;

(ii) On completion of the S106 Agreement delegated authority be given to the Acting Director of City and Environmental Services to GRANT permission subject to any necessary conditions including those outlined in the committee report, changes to conditions requested by members and updates circulated at the meeting.

Reason:              The development would cause some minor and less than substantial harm to the setting of the adjacent  Conservation Area and the listed Rowntree Wharf building,  and such harm has been afforded considerable importance and weight in the overall planning balance. The outcome of the assessment is that the benefits to the scheme including the provision of much needed additional dwellings in the City outweigh the less than substantial harm identified.          The development would fulfil the roles of sustainable development outlined in the NPPF and would otherwise accord with national and local planning policy, subject to securing contributions to mitigate the impact of the development on infrastructure.