Agenda item

Partial conversion of ground and first floor offices into 34 no. residential apartments with associated works to upgrade bin storage, cycle parking and provide external flood and fire escape stairs. [Guildhall]

Members considered a full major application by Bonner One Ltd for the partial conversion of ground and first floor offices into 34 residential apartments, with associated works to upgrade bin storage, cycle parking and provide external flood and fire escape stairs.

There was no officer update on this item.

Three members of the public spoke in objection to this application:

Dr. Diane Lister, who expressed concern over the validity of the application and statedsince May 2016 approximately 90 documents have been submitted to the planning portal about the car park, external works and the current residential corridors, including drawings for studio flats at the end of floors 2, 3 and 4. [Amended and agreed at Area Planning Sub Committee meeting on 3 November 2016] She requested that the Committee reject or defer the application. 

Brian Watson, who wished to again raise the issue of the escape route via steps. He highlighted the fact that disabled people would be unable to use this exit as there was a gap underneath the bottom step. Finally he stated his concerns about the number of people who would be required to operate the proposed system.

Chris Pickering, who spoke about crime prevention, development in flood zones and concerns that the car park was a listed building. He suggested that there should be an emergency ramp, rather than steps, to prevent extra work for the emergency services in the event of fire or flood.

Janet O’Neill, agent for the applicant, stated that she felt the changes which had been made since the last meeting now fully satisfied planning requirements. These included the fire escape being amended to reach the ground floor and the cycle stores being secured.

In response to Member questions the agent clarified:

·        Fire and Rescue Authorities had been consulted on, and were satisfied with, the proposed application.

·        Film had been used on the windows as secondary glazing was not appropriate on a listed building.

·        Cycle parking was inside a converted lift housing and would be secure.

·        In the event of there being a fire and flood scenario, fire-fighters would be on site to help with evacuation.

·        Responsibility for continued flood safety awareness would lie with the building management company in the future.

Officers responded to speakers comments to confirm:

·        It was not for the local authority to check ownership details.

Residents had been aware of the application for some time and nobody had brought this issue to the attention of planning department.

·        In terms of the documents uploaded to the planning portal, reasonable amendments to applications were part of the planning process.

Councillor Craghill suggested that  amendments be made to two conditions:

1.   Condition 7 be amended to make the wording stronger. Could this state that the waste and recycling scheme had to address the shortfall in waste and recycling capacity (in particular the 9 large recycling bins) and be approved by the Council.

2.   Condition 9 be amended  to state that tree planting should be linked to the life of the development.

These amendments were not taken forward.

Resolved:   That the application be approved subject to the   conditions detailed in the Officer’s report.

Reason:    

                                     I.        Rowntree Wharf is sustainably located close to the city centre. The principle of providing new housing in this location is considered to be acceptable and to accord with NPPF policy which seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing. The loss of the employment use within part of the ground and first floor is considered to be acceptable.

                                   II.        The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to heritage assets that, when balanced against the public benefits of the proposal and considering the additional weight to be attached to such concerns through the requirements of the Planning (listed building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, is considered to be acceptable.

                                  III.        The parking, residential amenity and flood risk implications of the scheme are acceptable when considered in the context of NPPF policy and subject to appropriate conditions.