Agenda item

Members considered a major full application from Andy Kerr (Applicant, City of York Council) for the erection of 5 level multi-storey car park with canopy to roof to provide 372 no. car parking spaces, demolition of public toilet, revised highway access and associated landscaping works at St Georges Field Car Park, Tower Street, York.

The Head of Development Services gave an update and confirmed that the following additional comments from the flood risk management team would be included as additional conditions.

It was noted that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report. The Head of Development Services outlined the application including the site location plan, proposed elevations, proposed ground floor, first, second, third and fourth level plan, proposed solar canopy, site vehicular plan, illustrative master plan and visualisations.

[As Cllr Pavlovic had joined the meeting at the beginning of the item it was agreed he would resume as Vice Chair]

Following questions regarding tree removal, a tree removal plan and landscaping plan was shared with the Committee. The Committee noted trees would not be removed unless absolutely necessary and that the applicant had proposed to plant an additional 25 trees. A condition to secure a suitable replacement for any trees removed would be included.

Officers were asked and clarified that:

·        The toilets would be located on the first floor, due to this floor being accessible during flood times.

·        Although the North Yorkshire Police did not support the application due to the open-sided ground floor and the risk of anti-social behaviour, Officers were confident that the building would be made secure by appropriate conditions which could include the carpark to be staffed, 24hr CCTV and regular patrols of the carpark. Some Committee Members preferred for the site to be staffed 24hr a day.

·        Although the Conservation Architect did not support the application, Officers confirmed their comments were noted but were not considered sufficient to refuse the application.

·        The application showed the building would be built with a solar canopy.

·        There was a loss of 133 car parking spaces.

Public Speakers

Lynnette Mills spoke in objection to the application. She felt the building would have a serious negative visual impact from a picturesque area and would impact on views from New Walk, Clifford’s Tower and Skeldergate Bridge.  She felt there had been no consideration of trees at the Foss side and felt the lime tree should not be removed and that the site should be used as a green corridor connection to the city.  With all the new housing and hotels going up in York she felt more green spaces were needed for mental and physical wellbeing. She felt that building a multi-story carpark would encourage more cars visiting the city centre and would not alleviate congestion or pollution and she asked Members to refuse the application.

John Hey spoke in objection to the proposal. He questioned why the council, who were discouraging cars in the city centre to reduce pollution, noise, were considering building a car park in the city centre, which will increase noise and pollution where as a  green space was more likely to achieve the councils aims and be welcomed by York residents.

Johnny Hayes spoke in objection to the proposal.  He raised his concerns to the multi-story car park and noted the harm it would cause to the nearby heritage assets and to the conservation area. He questioned the expenditure on a very expensive capital project that was contrary to stated COYC policy and felt the building was too large and too dominate and was the wrong building for St Georges Field. He highlighted the letter from Historic England which listed reasons for its refusal and he hoped Members would reject the application too.

Andy Kerr (Head of Regeneration, City of York Council - CYC) spoke on behalf of the applicant speaking in support to the application. He addressed the committee on both the Castle Mills and St George's Field planning applications. He outlined the wider CYC work on the Castle Gateway, how these planning applications formed part of implementing the masterplan and dealt with specific issues which had come up during the determination of the planning. He hoped the Committee would support the application. He then answered Members questions relating to the security of the building, public engagement, trees, flooding, the wider masterplan, residential use and parking for coaches. He confirmed that:

·        City of York Council had a number of discussions with North Yorkshire Police regarding their concerns to try and resolve any issues. The Police would like to see the site secure from a ground floor level but the site had to be open at ground floor due to flooding.  The Council would be the operator of the 24hr car park and would ensure the car park was safe and secure at night and would continue to monitor and respond to any concerns quickly.

·        A large amount of public engagement had taken place and businesses and retailers were clear that they would only support the closure of Castle Car Park if alternative city centre car parking was provided in the area.

·        More trees were being planted than the number being lost and the application ensured there were no loss of trees to New Walk. The Council would be happy to plant more mature trees on the site.

·        The ground floor would be secured off when there was any risk of flooding.

·        Castle Car Park would be improved as part as the wider masterplan and the new multi-story car park at St Georges Field would allow Castle Car Park to close and become a much needed area of public realm at the heart of one of York’s heritage sites.

·        Converting the site for residential use was declined due to flooding.

·        The site would provide 25 spaces for coaches 

Members then asked further clarification questions. The Head of Development Services advised that a security condition had been missed off the report and needed to be included. Referring back to the point about the car park being staffed 24 hours a day she advised that the majority of multi storey car parks (MSCP) in York were not staffed 24 hours a day and used CCTV for security purposes. With regard to the concerns to the heritage asset she felt that the consultation response from the Conservation Architect was sufficiently included in the report. Officers were asked and clarified that:

·        Along with the security condition could be an informative to state that the planning authority could work with the Police Architectural Liaison Officer to come to the best possible solution about security. Regarding a condition on this to the ‘reasonable satisfaction’ of the police, the Senior Solicitor advised that this would not meet one of the six tests as it would never be achieved given the concerns out forward by the police. The Head of Development Services clarified the security condition advising that the addition of 24 hour staffing was not reasonable but it would be reasonable to add ‘in consultation with the police’ at the end of the condition.

·        10-15 disabled spaces would be lost from the castle car cark and there was 31 spaces at the proposed car park. An update on the closure of foot streets was given noting that it was a temporary restriction. The Senior Solicitor advised that any decision made by the Committee needed to be on the basis of facts at present, and it was for the Committee to decide whether to give weight to the consultation on foot streets taking place. She added that any decision made on moral objection such as the fear of crime could only be a material consideration if it could be shown that the fear was based in reality.

·        The planning balance regarding the closure of the castle car park and the public realm part of the scheme would come forward as a separate planning application.

·        A condition had been added regarding a full road safety audit being undertaken.

Cllr Hollyer moved and Cllr Daubeney seconded approval of the application subject to the agreement of Chair and Vice Chair on the wording of the security condition. 

Members debated the application in detail, during which concern was raised about the security of the carpark, number of parking spaces, suitability of the location for disabled parking, harm to heritage, lack of traffic impact assessment and failure to meet LTN 1/20.

Members were asked and confirmed that they had been present throughout consideration of the application.

In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken on the motion to approve the application with the following result:

·                    Cllrs Daubeney, Doughty, Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer, Widdowson and Cullwick voted for the motion;

·                    Cllrs Baker, Barker, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Kilbane, Lomas, Pavlovic and Warters voted against the motion

The motion was therefore lost.

Cllr Baker then moved and Cllr Pavlovic seconded deferral on the basis of the need for a review of the parking need within this part of the city centre, the traffic impacts of the site, the suitability of the car park location for disabled parking, and the attendance of the conservation architect at the meeting. In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken on the motion to approve the application with the following result:

·                    Cllrs Baker, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Kilbane, Lomas, Pavlovic and Warters voted for the motion

·                    Cllrs Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer, Widdowson and Cullwick voted against the motion;

·                    Cllrs Barker, Daubeney, and Doughty abstained

The motion was carried and it was:

Resolved: That the application be deferred.

Reason: In order that further information be provided in relation to:

             i.        the parking need within this part of the city centre to inform the number of spaces proposed

            ii.        the suitability of this location for disabled parking

          iii.        clarification as to the traffic impacts on the pedestrian cycle route

          iv.        In order for the Conservation Architect to attend the meeting at which the application was to be determined