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

23 Piccadilly, York [19/02563/FULM]

Erection of no.132 bed hotel with bar/ restaurant, after demolition of existing office building. [Guildhall Ward]



Cllr Ayre and Cllr D’Agorne returned to the meeting for the consideration of this application.


Members considered a major full application from Mr Gareth Jackson for the Erection of no.132 bed hotel with bar/ restaurant, after demolition of existing office building at 23 Piccadilly York YO1 9PG.


The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application outlining the street scene, floor plan, and Piccadilly and St Denys Road elevations. Members raised a number of questions to which officers confirmed:

·        The view of Historic England

·        The view from Walmgate Bar

·        Possible structural harm to the Grade 1 listed St Denys church was a matter between the developer and the Church.

·        The visibility of the proposed building from different viewpoints

·        That when looking at the Conservation Area in Picciafilly, the existing building (propsed for demolishon) was not deemed of merit.


An officer update was then given which outlined the Consultation responses from the Conservation Area Advisory Panel and   Environment Agency. Further information from applicants on the Sustainable Design and Construction, local workforce / skills. Members were also provided with amendments concerning conditions 5 and 22.


In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed that:

·        The poplar tree was not within the site

·        The quality of the existing building, which had not been identified as a building of merit in the conservation area appraisal.

·        The views of the site (using google earth).

·        The government had brought in permitted development rights to turn offices into housing stock.

·        The loss of an existing building was a consideration in a conservation area and it’s importance wuld be set against the importance of what was being put in it’s place.

·        The façade of the Banana Warehouse in Piccadilly was a building of merit.

·        Permits would be needed to demolish the existing building as it was in a conservation area


[Cllr Pavlovic left the meeting at 19:35]


During questions a number of Members suggested that it would be useful to resume site visits to application sites.


Public speakers


The following spoke in objection to the application, raising issues in relation to the impact on amenity, structure of the church, access to the church hall and access to the visual setting of the church and viability of the existing building.


·        Jerry Scott, a local resident

·         Dr Charles Kightly, Churchwarden and Chair of the PCC, St Denys Walmgate. In answer to questions raised by Members he explained that:

o   Access to the church hall could not be maintained

o   There had been a meeting with the application and his objections stood

o   The developers said that the existing building could not be reused

o   He did not object to the existing building being used as a hotel




Tim Ross (Agent for the Applicant) and Jay Ahluwalia (Dominvs Group) addressed the Committee, detailing the positive impact on local employment, the sustainable design of the building and the reasons why the existing building was not feasible. Along with a number of colleagues available to answer questions, in response to Member questions they explained that:

·        The contractor would be using a piling technique using the lowest piling method

·        Why the existing building could not be repurposed

·        They were committed to ongoing liaison with the church

·        95% of the archaeology would be protected

·        The existing basement would be reused

·        Access to the church hall and toilets would not be prohibited

·        The contractors would be using an office on the opposite side of the rad as their temporary site office


Members then debated the proposals, after which Cllr Kilbane moved, and Cllr D’Agorne seconded, that the application be refused on the grounds of the scheme having less than substantial harm on the setting of St Denys Church, the impact of key views and the wider context of the church, the 6th floor block on the front section of the proposed building competing with the height of the tower of St Denys’ Church when viewed from Clifford’s Tower and the view of the church would still be partly obscured and the loss of the building in the conservation area. In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken. Cllrs D’Agorne, Fitzpatrick, Kilbane, Lomas and Rowley voted in favour of this proposal. Cllrs Ayre, Barker, Daubeney, Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer and Cullwick (Chair) against the proposal and the motion fell.


[Cllr Rowley left the meeting at 20:36]


Cllr Ayre moved, and Cllr Hollyer seconded, that the application be approved with additional and amended conditions for which the wording would be delegated to the Chair, Vice Chair and Officers for agreement:

·        Amended Condition 4 Construction management (timings of working hours)


[Cllr Barker left at 21:00]


·        The method of piling to use the lowest piling method

·        Monitoring of the listed building

·        Amended Condition 25 Noise - waste

·        Informative relating to the applicant working with the church

·        Investigation into protecting the poplar tree


In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken. Cllrs Ayre, Daubeney, Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer and Cullwick (Chair) in favour of the proposal. Cllrs D’Agorne, Fitzpatrick, Kilbane, and Lomas voted in against the proposal.


Resolved:  That the application be approved, subject to:


(i)           Conditions 1-3, 5-21, 23, 24, and 26 as set out in the report;


(ii)         Amendments to Conditions 4, and 25  to reflect the following requirements, with the wording of the amended conditions to be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the meeting:


·        Amended Condition 4 Construction management (timings of working hours)

·        Amended Condition 25 Noise - waste

(iii)        Amended Conditions 5 and 22 as set out in the officer update:


Condition 5

 Variation to permitted working hours

The temporary extension to working hours is in accordance with new national guidance.


5 The hours of construction, loading or unloading on the site shall be confined to 8:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 13:00 Saturday and no working on Sundays or public holidays. 


To facilitate safe working in relation to the Covid-19 situation extended working hours are permitted between 0700 and 1930 Monday to Saturday for a temporary period until 1st April 2021. Works within these permitted extended hours should adhere to the following:


-      The noise associated with any works should not be audible beyond the perimeter of the site.

-      There should be no piling undertaken outside of permitted hours.

-      There should be no heavy plant movements during these extended hours.

-      The extended hours should only allow trades working on and within plots.

-      There should be no excessive noise, dust or vibration caused during this period


Any working outside of the permitted hours is subject to prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (It is asked that any requests to work outside of the permitted hours contains justification and details of practical measures to avoid noise disturbance).


Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent residents and in line with MHCLG guidance (22 July 2020).



The City of York Council requests that that any changes to the original working hours are communicated to neighbouring properties in a proportionate manner.


Condition 22


Details to be approved as follows -

22 Prior to construction of the building hereby permitted details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The information shall include site-specific details of:


-      The flow control device manhole the means by which the surface water discharge rate shall be restricted to a maximum rate of 8.7 (eight point seven) litres per second.

-      The attenuation tank the means by which the surface water attenuation up to the 1 in 100 year event with a 30% climate change allowance shall be achieved.

-      The full storage volume calculations for the surface water attenuation above.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to avoid increased flood risk elsewhere in accordance with Publication Draft Local Plan policy ENV4 and NPPF paragraph 163.



The final wording of the conditions to be delegated to officers along with Chair and Vice Chair of the meeting.



                     i.        The proposed hotel use is acceptable in principle at this city centre site and fits with the aspirations for economic growth in the NPPF and the 2018 DLP, by facilitating a sector where there is growth and evidentially demand.  The scheme is appropriate for the site; the design is acceptable and relates to the context. 


                    ii.        There would be a very low level of harm to designated Heritage Assets, which is considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.  The benefits are predominantly economic but are also environmental and social given the public realm enhancements involved. 


                  iii.        With regards demolition, given the acceptable impact on Heritage Assets, there are no policy grounds to oppose this; in accordance with NPPF advice the re-development makes more efficient use of the site (providing additional floor-space) and the new build will comply with Local Plan policies on Sustainable Design and Construction.  A condition will prevent any premature demolition, before there is a contract in place for the construction project. 


                  iv.        There would be no unacceptable impact on amenity, which cannot be reasonably controlled through the use of planning conditions.  Other technical matters can also be dealt with, to the extent the scheme would be NPPF compliant by way of conditions.


Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page