Agenda item

Railway Museum, Leeman Road, York [21/02793/REMM]

Reserved matters application for layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access for the construction of Central Hall (F1 use class) including entrance hall, exhibition space and café with associated access, parking, landscaping and external works following the demolition of the mess room and other structures pursuant to 18/01884/OUTM [Holgate Ward]

 

Minutes:

Members considered a major Reserved matters application from  theBoard of Trustees of The Science Museum for the layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access for the construction of Central Hall (F1 use class) including entrance hall, exhibition space and café with associated access, parking, landscaping and external works following the demolition of the mess room and other structures pursuant to 18/01884/OUTM at the Railway Museum, Leeman Road, York.

 

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave an update noting the additional representations had been received, and the NRM response in respect of concerns raised regarding accessibility by Class 3 mobility wheelchairs. In their response the NRM confirmed that it would not differentiate between different classes of wheelchair and so Class 3 wheelchair users will be able to make use of the Walkway Route, including the passage through Central Hall. The Head of Planning and Development Services also noted that written representations were attached to the speakers list for the meeting.

 

The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application noting that the closure of Leeman Road and pedestrian route was part of the outline planning permission. She added that the walkway agreement was a separate entity to the planning application. In response to a Member question regarding the applicant stating at the stopping up enquiry that the route through the site being considered as part of the reserved matters application, the Head of Planning and Development Services clarified that it referred to the walkway agreement. She was asked and clarified that there was sufficient information in condition 45 of the outline planning permission for the walkway agreement.

 

Public Speakers

Cllr K Taylor (Ward Cllr) spoke in objection to the application on behalf of residents. He referred to the number of objections to the scheme and asked the committee to defer the application.

David Finch (Chairperson of the Friends of Leeman Park) spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the Friends of Leeman Park. He detailed safety concerns regarding the riverside path and asked that a condition be included to state that construction at the NRM could not begin until the riverside route had finished. In response to a Member question he noted that it was hoped that the riverside path would be widened.

Alice Williams spoke in objection to the application, explaining how the decision to approve would have detrimental effects on the residents of York. She expressed concern regarding a lack of engagement from the applicant and accessibility for all.

Christine Johnson spoke in objection to the application as a resident of St Peter’s Quarter. She explained her concerns regarding safety, in particular to women due to the change in the route to St Peter’s Quarter.

Ian Bissell, also a resident of St Peter’s Quarter, spoke in objection to the application. He explained how those residents would be adversely affected by the plans. He noted that there was no equalities impact assessment (EIA).

Roger Pierce spoke in objection to the application on behalf of WalkYork.  He suggested alternative walkways through the site and when asked, clarified what form these could take.

Jane Burton spoke in objection to the application on behalf of York Disability Rights Forum. She explained that the removal of the road route would significantly affect disabled people, particularly those reliant on taxis. She expressed concern regarding parking for blue badge holders and the lack of an EIA. In response to Member questions she explained that:

The lack of a designated pathway between the two doors was a problem for partially sighted people. They would not be able to use the route.

Mobility cycles allowed freedom of movement and access and they would have to go around the NRM.

Clive Matthews spoke in objection to the application on behalf of York Cycle Campaign. He noted that there had been no EIA and that the plan curtailed pedestrian access and prohibit cyclists and would cause a serious loss of amenity with the greatest impact on vulnerable people. When asked about a workable solution, he suggested access around the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam as a solution.

 

Cllr Melly (Ward Cllr) spoke in objection to the application on behalf of residents. She suggested that the conditions in the outline planning permission had not been met and that the benefits of the application did not outweigh the harm. She explained the harm caused by the application and that the benefits of the wider York Central development were not relevant to this application. In answer to Member questions she explained that:

There was no condition on the outline planning permission or stopping up order for improvements to the riverside route. She explained the two ways of accessing the route from St Peter’s Square

Sarah Loftus (Managing Director of Make it York (MiY) spoke in support of the application on behalf of MiY.

Laurence Beardmore spoke in support of the application on behalf of the York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce

Natalie Webster (Homes England) spoke in support of the application on behalf of Homes England

James Farrar (Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) spoke in support of the application on behalf of the LEP.

Judith McNicol (Director of the National Railway Museum) spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.

 

Resolved: That the application be deferred for an Equalities Impact Assessment to be carried out by officers in respect of the walking route shown edged yellow on Drawing Number 201564_NRM_OP_SW_0001 Rev 05.

 

Reason:     In order to take into account the needs of people with protected characteristics.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page