Agenda item - York Central Design Guidelines

The purpose of this report is to secure endorsement of the York Central Design Guide for submission as part the Outline Planning Application for the York Central site.

Resolved: (i) That the detailed drafting of the following proposed amendments to the Draft York Central Design Guide at Annex 2 to the report be delegated to the Corporate Director of Economy & Place:

· Different height levels / physical separation to be used where cycle ways are proposed other than on shared surfaces;

· Cycle lanes to be clearly indicated in contrasting materials;

· Mixing of cyclists and pedestrians in unmarked situations to be discouraged;

· Cycle parking, where provided, to be adequate, secure and safe, with sufficient dedicated ground floor cycle parking, appropriate to the anticipated level of occupation, designed into all buildings;

· Cycle storage to be included in external parking areas;

· Central Park Swale to have permanent water as part of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy (SUDS);

· Electric charging points to be integrated in primary streets;

· Proposed car parking provision above 10 units to include centralised car schemes to reduce the need for car ownership;

· Snickets to be designed to discourage anti-social behaviour, graffiti, fly tipping and poor waste storage, design out crime and promote personal safety;

· The ‘right tree in the right place’ principle to be applied within the street tree framework, to ensure the trees do not cause problems at maturity;

· Any proposal not to use photo voltaic panels on heritage buildings or multi-storey car parks to be justified;

· Buildings to be encouraged to surpass the current CYC minimum carbon emissions standards by over 10% and required to undergo a cost benefit analysis regarding the achievement of Passivhaus certification unless clearly demonstrated that this cannot be done;

· Low or Zero Carbon feasibility studies to be expected for all non-residential buildings;

· Proposals for energy networks and a collaborative approach to be expected as part of the detailed proposals (to replace the District Heating Scheme);

· Adequate provision to be made on site for waste and recycling storage.

Reason: To ensure that York Central partners are advised of amendments that the Council would like to see in the Design Guide in order that it reflects the public concern expressed in respect of cycling and pedestrian access, car use and other environmental issues.

(ii) That, subject to these amendments, the Design Guide be endorsed for submission by York Central partners as part of the York Central Outline Planning Application.

Reason: To ensure York Central partners seek to secure quality and sustainability place making objectives for York Central, and to ensure the timely progression of the York Central development.

(iii) That a report be prepared by officers for the Executive to enable them to consider the proposals of the National Railway Museum (NRM), before submissions are made for the redevelopment of the NRM or the diversion of Leeman Road.

Reason: To ensure that Council has opportunity to formally engage with a key partner to address any public concerns around these proposals.

(iv) That the following matters be addressed in future reports to the Executive:

a) Arrangements for a dedicated person to collate policy on and champion equalities issues for York Central, to help co-ordinate input from the wide range of groups in the city and from individual representations.

b) How community facilities, and the development of community organisations to oversee the operation of the public realm and community buildings within the York Central scheme, will be dealt with.

Reason: To ensure that equalities and community issues can be properly addressed within the scheme.

(v) That it be noted that:

· The planning process will cover the issue of the minimum widths of cycle lanes not detailed in the York Central Design Guide;

· Each planning application relating to transport will need to demonstrate the application of the hierarchy of transport users;

· Planning applications for office developments will need to demonstrate the provision of secure cycle storage, changing facilities and showering facilities;

· Planning applications will need to demonstrate that where mixed use is delivered it will support a vibrant daytime and evening use of an area on the site.

Reason: To confirm that the Executive Leader and Deputy Leader are aware of these matters and public concerns but have not attempted to address them as they will be part of subsequent planning processes.

The Executive Leader and Executive Member for Environment (Deputy Leader) considered a report which sought their endorsement of the York Central Design Guide for submission as part the Outline Planning Application for the York Central site.

Attached to the report was a map of the site at Annex 1 and the draft Design Guide at Annex 2. The Design Guide formed an important component of the outline application and in combination with the parameter plans, set out the design criteria which would be applied in considering future reserved matters planning applications. These included item such as building typologies and appearance, the palate of materials, the preserved views and public space.

Phillip Crow, spoke on behalf of York Environmental Forum, expressing concern regarding the application process than the detailed analysis of the Design Guide. He outlined the reasons for this concern and urged the Council to allow proper time for the guide to be evaluated.

Tamsin Hart-Jones, on behalf of York Central Partnership noted that the partnership had worked collaboratively for the past three years to bring the York Central proposal forward. She explained the purpose and content of the Design Guide. She added that the Design Guide reflected the aspiration for best practices in sustainability. She noted the importance of the endorsement of the Design Guide.

Gwen Swinburn expressed concern regarding the delegation of the Design Guide which she believed to be a breach of key decision protocols. She noted that the Design Guide affected the whole of the city, not two Wards. She suggested that the Design Guide itself should have been subject to consultation. She noted that she hoped that the decision would be called-in by the Customer and Corporate Services Scrutiny Management Committee.

Cllr Lars Kramm (Ward Councillor for Micklegate) explained that he believed that the York Central Design Guidelines should be a key decision for consideration by the Executive. He suggested that the Design Guidelines affected more than two Wards. He noted there was a high demand for quality houses and offices and suggested that the Design Guidelines should have shown more ambition.

Peter Sheath, on behalf of York Cycle Campaign expressed recognition that the Design Guidelines were not a planning policy document. He noted that there was a lack of provision for cyclists (in terms of segregated pathways and cycle parking) in the Design Guidelines and he asked that they be amended to include these. He asked that the guidelines be amended to include a segregated cycle network across the site.

Caroline Lewis, on behalf of Clean Air York explained the impact of the design and layout of the Design Guidelines on air quality and air pollution. She suggested that the road layout had been designed for fast traffic movement to the disadvantage of pedestrians and cyclists. She noted how the sharing of routes by motor vehicles, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians affected air quality.

The Executive Leader then read out a letter from the Science Museum Group in response to a letter sent by himself and Cllr Aspden to the National Railway Museum (NRM) concerning cycle and pedestrian access options. In the letter the NRM’s consultation process with local residents was outlined and it was noted that the NRM would consider responses to the consultation and analysis of safety and journey impacts before reaching a decision as to the option to select for consideration as part of the York Central Outline Planning Application. Assurance was given that analysis and consultation feedback would be submitted as part of the planning application. In the letter it was also noted that the NRM had allocated more land for the primary purpose of cycle and pedestrian connectivity which would give flexibility going forward.

An officer update was given in which the Senior Solicitor advised that the process was completely lawful. The Corporate Director Economy and Place clarified that the purpose of the decision presented before the Executive Leader and Executive Member for Environment (Deputy Leader) was to endorse the York Central Design Guide for submission as part the Outline Planning Application for the York Central site and he explained the process for this. In response to a question from the Executive Leader, the Corporate Director Economy and Place clarified the timeframe for funding in terms of timescales for public sector funding.

Following an overview of the Design Guidelines by the Commercial Project Manager - Regeneration and Asset Management, the Executive Member for Environment (Deputy Leader) made a number of comments in relation to his 16 proposed amendments to the York Design Central Guidelines. He then outlined each of the amendments, requested further reports to the Executive and noted a number of points concerning the planning process and applications for York Central.

The Executive Leader made a number of comments and explained that the Council had been in discussion with the NRM over the access requirements for pedestrians and cyclists. He noted that Council officers had worked with the NRM to amend the York Central Design Guidelines as presented. In order to require the NRM to optimise the route to the benefit of the public, the Council had received confirmation that day that the NRM were allocating further land within the masterplan submission to ensure that when final decisions were made on the route they could be accommodated.

The Executive Leader further noted that the Executive had requested that before submissions were made for the redevelopment of the NRM or diversion of Leeman Road, that an Executive report was prepared in order that the Council could consider the proposals of the NRM to ensure that the key partner and Council address public concerns. Following the update from the Executive Leader it was: