Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

Fire Station, 18 Clifford Street, York, YO1 9RD (15/02155/FULM)

Demolition of buildings in the conservation area and building works to create 7no. dwellings and restaurant (Class A3) with 7 flats above. [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit]




Members considered a major full application by Mr David Chapman (DC Architecture) for the demolition of buildings in the conservation area and building works to create 7 dwellings and a restaurant (Class A3) with 7 flats above.


Officers advised that the recommendation in the report “to approve subject to completion of a section 106 agreement”, was incorrect as the application did not have to be referred to the Secretary of State, despite the objection from Historic England.


They advised that an updated Archaeology Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) had been submitted which detailed the proposed mitigation & explained that the applicants would install a system which would collect and distribute rainwater to prevent water-logged deposits drying out.


A further objection from Historic England has been received dated 10.5.2016 advising that the application should be refused or deferred until the archaeology assessment (proposed in the WSI) had been conducted, the results understood & and the agreed mitigation strategy secured. Officers advised that the concerns Historic England had was that the heritage value of the archaeology that would be affected by the development was not yet fully understood.  If post development monitoring were to indicate that deposits were degrading,  then there was no proposal for excavation and, as such, the deposits would be lost


Officers advised that the following proposed additional conditions should be agreed if members were minded to approve the application:


·        Protection of Buildings to be retained

·        Exterior of ‘lodge’ to be recorded prior to demolition

·        DRAINAGE

o   Drainage

o   Surface Water Discharge


o   Removal of redundant crossings

o   Highway Improvement Works

o   HWAY31 – no mud on highway during construction

o   HWY40 – Dilapidation survey

·        Approved Plans

·        Cycle Parking


Officers advised that three further consultation responses had been received, from the conservation architect, Flood Risk Management Team and Highway Network Management,  details of which were  included  in the officer update which has been appended to the agenda papers. Officers provided a response in relation to the issues raised in these consultation responses.


The Conservation Architect had submitted comments in relation to the lodge building, chapel and school room and the Clifford Street Extension. Officers concluded that they supported the scheme overall acknowledging that a convincing justification had been provided for demolition of the lodge building.


The Flood Risk Management Team confirmed that they did not object to the proposals but had recommended imposing the conditions listed above.


Highway Network Management  requested a larger cycle store which was fit for purpose be required  and that the traffic regulation order included the removal of future residents from the local residents parking scheme. Additionally it was proposed that one car parking space be lost close to the junction with Clifford Street and that conditions be added to remove any redundant dropped kerbs/crossing and to agree a method of works.


Mr Ian Milsted, Project Manager at York Archaeological Trust,  addressed the committee. He provided members with a brief history of the site and advised that, to support the planning application, they had undertaken a programme of evaluation between July 2015 and February 2016. He explained the archaeological sequence identified during this evaluation and that the potential waterlogged organic archaeological deposits most likely dated from Roman to early medieval period. He advised that the impact of the proposals on these deposits would be minimal. He stated that the City of York Archaeologist supported the proposals but had advised that further evaluation work, to test further samples and monitor water levels, be undertaken as a non standard condition and in line with draft Historic England guidelines.


Janet O’Neil, of O’Neil Associates, the agent, spoke in support of the application. She advised Members that this was a challenging site to redevelop, which had been vacated by the fire service 2 years previously, and was in need of a new use. She asked Members to consider 3 main aspects:

1.   flooding – development needed to be flood resistant hence, no habitable rooms on ground floor, windows blocked behind glass, floodgates, safe evacuation routes and the river front building designed not to leak.

2.   Archaeology – need to preserve any archaeological remains where they lay and prevent further deterioration. Developer was willing to fully meet council’s requirements as conditioned but it was not possible for clients to carry out 12 months monitoring before permission was granted as this would be outside their contact with North Yorkshire Fire Service

3.   Design – this was a prominent site in the city centre. The architect had worked closely with officers and the final design represented a distinctive yet respectful scheme. 


Some Members raised concerned about the introduction of the street trees shown in the plans which they felt were crammed in and created layout issues, expressing a preference to retain as much of the granite cobbles as possible instead of all the surface being in York Stone as proposed. Officers advised that the landscape architect would be reviewing the proposals but that it was possible to alter the landscaping condition to allow some flexibility while still ensuring good access along the street.


Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report, the additional conditions listed below and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure contributions towards education, open space and highways.


Additional Conditions:


Protection of buildings to be retained

Prior to works in the relevant area illustrated method statements which describe how the chapel and school room facades and the listed former friary wall would be retained and protected during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in adherence with the approved measures.


Reason: To protect listed structures and structures which are proposed to be retained and make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of the setting.


Exterior of ‘lodge’ to be recorded prior to demolition

Prior to its demolition the "lodge" building shall be subject to a level 1 recording in accordance with Historic England guidance - Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice February 2006. The record shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to demolition.


Reason: To record and enhance our understanding of the historic environment, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework.



The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.


Reason: In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.



No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.


INFORMATIVE: Design considerations.

The developer’s attention is drawn to Requirement H3 of the Building Regulations 2000 with regards to hierarchy for surface water dispersal and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuD’s). Consideration should be given to discharge to soakaway, infiltration system and watercourse in that priority order. Surface water discharge to the existing public sewer network must only be as a last resort.


If the proposed method of surface water disposal is via soakaways, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365, (preferably carried out in winter), to prove that the ground has sufficient capacity to except surface water discharge, and to prevent flooding of the surrounding land and the site itself. City of York Council’s Flood Risk Management Team should witness the BRE Digest 365 test.


If SuDs methods can be proven to be unsuitable then In accordance with City of York Councils Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, peak run-off from Brownfield developments must be attenuated to 70% of the existing rate (based on 140 l/s/ha of proven by way of CCTV drainage survey connected impermeable areas). Storage volume calculations, using computer modelling, must accommodate a 1:30 year storm with no surface flooding, along with no internal flooding of buildings or surface run-off from the site in a 1:100 year storm.  Proposed areas within the model must also include an additional 20% allowance for climate change. The modelling must use a range of storm durations, with both summer and winter profiles, to find the worst-case volume required.


Reason:  So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with these details for the proper and sustainable drainage of the site.


Surface water discharge

Unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.


Reason:  So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that no foul and surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.


INFORMATIVE: The public sewer network does not have capacity to accept an unrestricted discharge of surface water. Surface water discharge to the existing public sewer network must only be as a last resort, the developer is required to eliminate other means of surface water disposal.


INFORMATIVE: Flood warning service

Future occupants are advised to sign up to the Environment Agencies flood warning service.




Removal of redundant crossings

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved all existing vehicular crossings not shown as being retained on the approved plans shall be removed by reinstating the kerb to match adjacent levels.


Reason:  In the interests of good management of the highway and road safety.


Highway improvement works

The development hereby permitted shall not come into use until the following highway works (which definition shall include works associated with any Traffic Regulation Order required as a result of the development, signing, lighting, drainage and other related works) have been carried out in accordance with details which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, or arrangements entered into which ensure the same.


Highway works: Works as indicatively shown on the ground floor plan drawing including widening of existing footway to 3m, raising kerb to full height along the footway and the installation of dropped Yorkstone tactile crossing across Peckitt Street.


Reason:  In the interests of the safe and free passage of highway users.


HWAY31 - No mud on highway during construction


HWAY40 - Dilapidation survey


INFORMATIVE: Highway management

Prior to works commencing the developer is advised to contact the council’s highways department to agree the following items to minimise disruption on the highway network during construction -

-      the routing that will be promoted by the contractors to use main arterial routes and avoid the peak network hours

-      how vehicles are to access and egress the site

-      how pedestrians are to be safely routed past the site

-      details of any implications to the highway of demolition and waste removal vehicle operation
- where contractors will park to avoid affecting the highway

how large vehicles will service the site
- where materials will be stored within the site


Approved Plans

Condition to be updated, to incorporate latest set of plans which were received on the 9.5.2016


Cycle Parking

Condition to be varied to ensure cycle store for the apartments is of adequate size




The scheme would deliver acceptable re-development of a significant previously developed site in the city centre.  There would be a low level of harm (certainly less than substantial harm) to designated heritage assets (i.e. to the conservation area due to the loss of the lodge, and to the area of archaeological importance).  The scheme would be safe from flood risk.  Even when attaching great weight to this harm, the public benefits of the scheme as described above were considered in the planning balance to justify the identified harm, and to allow residential development in flood zone 3. Conditions were necessary to agree the detailed design and ensure the proposed mitigation against flood risk. Subject to the adherence to the planning conditions proposed there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity and highway safety.


Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page