Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to form 276no. room purpose built student accommodation with associated car parking, landscaping and facilities [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a major full application from Petrina Ltd and Grantside (North Star West) Ltd for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to form 276no. room purpose built student accommodation with associated car parking, landscaping and facilities at Mecca Bingo 68 Fishergate York YO10 4AR.

The Head of Planning and Development services gave a presentation on the application using site photos and the proposed elevations. An update was given advising Members of further representations from York Cycle Campaign, further objection comments and the receipt of a letter in support of the application. There were also additional conditions 27 and 28. It was clarified that William Court was to the West of the site.

Officers then responded to Member questions as follows:

·        Regarding the dismissal of the appeal on the application for the former Plumbase site, it was felt that there was more amenity space in this development and with the courtyard it was felt that there was a reasonable amount of community space.

·        Four parking spaces were DDA compliant and this such a condition could be written into tenancy agreements.

·        Regarding whether the imposition of what tenants did off site regarding electric vehicle was lawful, the wording of that condition was taken from the Frederick House determination and could be deleted or amended.

·        The information on the amount of purpose built student accommodation (PBSA), in paragraph 5.9 of the report was provided by the applicant. A Member requested that information not provided by the council in reports should be stated in reports.

·        The student accommodation would be classed as housing land supply.

·        The electric substation adjacent to a resident’s property in William Court would be sound proofed and was a sufficient distance away from the house.

·        Regarding concern about parking near the pedestrian crossing, it was intended that the loading bay would be used for loading/unloading vehicles. There would also be traffic regulation orders (TROs) for Fishergate. It was not feasible to have a loading bay on Fishergate

·        Access and egress for students would be at the back of the building.

·        The application sought to have a building set back and planting would complement the existing planting on the opposite side of the road. The ecology condition was noted.

·        Clarification was given on the location of the access doors and cycle parking. Cycle parking in the courtyard could be requested but there would not be level access. There was a ramp for disabled access.

·        Regarding students accessing their accommodation, the site was secure and the gates were locked.

·        The number of access points was limited. Referring to the site plan, officers showed where the entrances to the building were located.

·        The southern point was a point of access not meant as the main point of access. It was understood that that entrance would be gated.

·        The council archaeologist was content that the archaeology condition was sufficient.

Public Speakers

Ann Clayton (local resident) spoke in objection to the application. She explained that the application design was inappropriate and impacted her amenity by the electric substation being 3m away from her property. She suggested that the substation and its machinery would present a new noise issue which would adversely affect residents. She noted that the public protection report raised concerns about the noise survey data and she noted residents’ concerns about the adverse impact of noise.

John Toy (local resident) spoke in objection to the application. He expressed concerns about the environmental impact of the demolition of the mecca bingo building. He noted that the proposed number of residential students would increase footfall, increasing congestion and impact on air quality. He was also concerned about road safety, suggesting that the turning point in William Court was not suitable. He added that Fishergate was a residential area and student accommodation would impact this

Chris Copland spoke in objection to the application on behalf of York Cycle Campaign. He noted that the location of the block was close to New Walk however, the exit point was directly onto Fishergate which was a pinch point on the gyratory system. He proposed there should be cycle exit onto the western side of the site and regarding car parking on blue bridge lane, that this should be moved to the southern side of the road. Regarding cycle parking, he referred to LTN1/20 which stated that there should be one secure cycle parking space per unit. He was asked and noted that he did not have any statistical evidence on whether Blue Bridge Lane was regularly used by cyclists.

Cllr Kilbane spoke in objection to the application. Referring to policy D3 in the Local Plan he noted that the bingo hall was a cultural facility that needed protecting. He added that the application should not be approved until alternative provision had been identified. He then suggested that after the beginning of the meeting the Chair consider his position and resign. When asked what he thought should be located on the site, he noted that spaces were needed for cultural provision.

Cllr Dave Taylor (Ward Cllr) spoke on the application. He had spoken to the developers regarding his traffic concerns, which included concerns about dropping off and deliveries. He suggested that there needed to be 24 hour management presence on the site. In answer to questions from Members, Cllr Taylor noted that access onto Blue Bridge Lane would be problematic from vehicle movements. He was asked and noted that as a delivery driver, when making deliveries he would park where he could.

Michelle Davies (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. She noted that there had been lots of productive meetings about the application and as a result the number of units had reduced from 316 to 276. She noted that the scheme would be managed by an experienced operator and there would be 24 hour management on site. She added car parking at the rear was for disabled users and they would have key fob access. She noted that there would be marshals on site for student drop off. She noted that the site would contribute to housing land supply and would bring houses of multiple occupation back into residential use.

Michelle Davies was joined by a number of colleagues who were in attendance to answer questions and in response to Member questions explained that:

·        The Blue Bridge Lane access was primarily for deliveries and students would walk through the front of the building on Fishergate to get into the building.

·        Regarding the suggestion that students with a key fob would get into the building through the bin store, this was not the case as students with a key fob would get in through reception and there was also a door near the cycle parking that could be used to access the building. Further provision for access for people with key fobs could be looked into.

·        Regarding the noise levels from the substation, there was a planning condition that specified decibel levels and the mitigation for noise levels was distance and soundproofing.

·        The view from the summerhouse in the garden adjacent to the substation was primarily of the garden and the substation height was slightly above this.

·        The scheme was different to other student accommodation because of the amenity space through the courtyards.

·        Concerning whether the amount of cycle storage was sufficient, the space for the cycle racks had been developed with highways officers.

·        It was designed that all cyclists would leave via Fishergate and there was internal and external cycle provision in the courtyard. In terms of exiting the site, cyclists would navigate the existing cycle network.

·        [The highways officer then noted that in terms of future highways infrastructure need, consideration needed to given as to it would meet the NPPF paragraph 57 test. Currently there was a scheme being worked up looking at Fishergate and Fulford Road. He outlined the cycle lanes near the site noting that students would travel at different times of the day. He clarified where short term parking was located, adding that the developer was prepared to make a contribution towards the TROs.  He was asked and noted the requirements to upgrade the pedestrian crossing]

·        Pizza would be delivered at the north end of the site by going through the courtyard into the southern block to the end entrance on Blue Bridge Lane. There would be a Section 106 agreement.

·        [Following a question about condition 19, officers clarified that LA90 referred to what the noise would be 90% of the time.]

·        The noise assessment did not address noise from the substation at the present time and there would be a condition regarding noise levels and sound proofing.

·        Regarding deliveries, it was not known of there would be a single postcode for the site.

·        The arrangements for taking deliveries was explained and the receipt of parcel deliveries would be written into the lease. Standard practice for city centre student accommodation was for students to be present in the building for deliveries.

·        Regarding consideration of housing on the site for York residents, the Committee was there to consider the application before it.

·        Regarding the feasibility of 15 arrivals per hour, the system being used was used by Olympian at student accommodation in Leeds in September. There was short term packing on Blue Bridge Lane and an explanation was given on how students unloads would be managed.

[The meeting adjourned from 19:51 to 20:00]

Members asked officers further questions to which they responded that:

·        The condition regarding the delivery of parcels could be changed.

·        Officers were not aware that the bingo hall had been marketed for use as a bingo hall. They didn’t have evidence that the bingo hall was viable as a community facility.

·        If the building was not used for community use it would be used for commercial use.

·        Regarding recreational and cultural facilities and the suggestion that the difference in how provision was categorised as to whether it was useful to men and women, it was the officer judgement that the building was not suitable as a community facility. The Senior Solicitor then referred to NPPF paragraph 93(a) in what the local plan should take account of. She noted that part C of that paragraph was relevant to the Committee’s decision making.

·        Concerning what community facilities were in the area, officers took into account reasonable walking distances to community facilities such as the Barbican. The building was in close proximity to buildings for commercial and community use.

During debate Members expressed concern regarding access, highways access and loss of community space, including the viability of the building for community use. Cllr D’Agorne moved and Cllr Melly seconded deferral of the application on that basis. The Senior Solicitor advised on paragraph 93 of the NPPF noted that officers did not consider that the building met the need for day to day community use. The Head of Planning and Development Services advised that officers did not consider the building as a community facility and this had been fully assessed.

Following debate a vote was taken with nine in favour and four against the deferral of the application. It was therefore:

Resolved: That;

     i.        The application be deferred.

    ii.        Further information be obtained on disabled access, the access route through the site, the number of disabled accessible rooms, the conflict between deliveries and public safety, location of the substation, cycle parking provision and location.

  iii.        A request be made for information on the loss of the bingo hall as a community facility and whether the bingo hall was considered a community facility.

Reason:

In order to address concerns on disabled access, the access route through the site, the number of disabled accessible rooms, the conflict between deliveries and public safety, location of the substation, cycle parking provision and location, and loss of the bingo hall as a community facility.

[Cllrs Pavlovic and Cuthbertson left the meeting at 20:39]

[The meeting adjourned from 20:39 to 20:46]