Have we been shopped?

ANYONE reading the revised draft planning brief for the Castle Piccadilly area could be forgiven for thinking city planners have just one thing on their minds: shopping.

When the brief, which will act as a blueprint for developers drawing up plans for the Eye of York, went out to consultation last year, many of those who responded objected to the words "retail-led" in the council's statement of key objectives.

"If this development was retail-led it would be like tearing the historic heart out of the city," one person said.

"In a city of York's national and international stature retailing cannot be the overriding consideration," another said.

Following a massive consultation exercise, the words "retail-led" have now been struck out of the revised planning brief that will go before councillors for approval tomorrow.

But what have they been replaced by?

The council's vision for this unique area is now to "promote sustainable regeneration and enhancement by seeking high quality mixed use development which meets the retail needs of the city" (our italics).

To be fair, the council's vision for the area does also make reference to a civic and open space, and also to the importance of ensuring the setting and views of Clifford's Tower are protected.

But those worried about the impact of development on such a sensitive and historic area still fear these could play second fiddle to the need for more shops.

Philip Crowe, chairman of the York Tomorrow pressure group, fears that the planning brief as it now stands could result in a development in which "the retail element might overwhelm the project, as it did before".

That "as it did before" is a reference to the council-backed Coppergate II plans, which were so humiliatingly rejected by a Government planning inspector in 2003.

Mr Crowe is not against some shops in a redeveloped Castle Piccadilly. "But we still feel that the city, in conjunction with retail developers, are wanting to put more retail on the site than it can stand."

Mr Crowe is also worried that the revised development is frustrat-ingly vague and doesn't set out in sufficient detail what would and would not be allowed on the site. That, he says, leaves it potentially vulnerable to over-development.

Derek Gauld is the principal planning officer who has written the report for tomorrow's planning committee. He admits it is difficult to get the balance right between shops, open space and the need to protect the heritage of the site.

There is a real need for more shops - especially large shops - in York, Mr Gauld says, because the city is "lagging behind other regional centres such as Leeds and Hull" in terms of its shopping.

But he insists there are "very strong assurances" in the revised brief that are aimed at protecting Clifford's Tower and the Eye of York from over-development and from being swamped by shopping.

The lessons have been learned from the Coppergate II fiasco in 2003, he says.

Len Cruddas, chief executive of the York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce, which supports shops on the site, said: "There has to be some sort of value there for developers... otherwise it development of the Castle Piccadilly area is just not going to happen."

The brief, if approved tomorrow, will act as a blueprint for any developers wanting to redevelop the site. So what does it say?

:: What the planning brief now says:

The council's vision for the Eye of York and Piccadilly area, as set out in the brief, now reads as follows:

To: "promote sustainable regeneration and enhancement by seeking high quality mixed use development which meets the retail needs of the city with quality civic and open space, which will enhance the vitality and viability of the city centre, whilst ensuring the settings and views of the internationally important listed buildings within and adjoining the site of the River Foss are protected and enhanced".

Key objectives include:

To create an outstanding development that demonstrates the principles of sustainable development in... design, construction and use

To ensure the setting of Clifford's Tower and the castle precinct is enhanced and the important views of these buildings are maintained

To ensure development is of the highest architectural quality

To promote a mixed use development of the highest quality which ensures the retail needs for the city are met

To create a new open and civic space around the Eye of York and Clifford's Tower

To maximise the potential of the River Foss.

The brief has been amended to strengthen the protection it offers to the Eye of York itself.

Whereas the original draft brief approved before consultation merely said "the present dominance of Clifford's Tower should be maintained", the revised brief goes much further.

"The present dominance of Clifford's Tower must be maintained," it says, "by retaining an open carpet around it and providing space beyond this of an appropriate scale".

The brief also refers to a retail study carried out by Roger Tym and Partners in 2004, however, which identified the need for more shops in the city.

And it says: "Regeneration of this area should therefore seek to address the need for 17,600 square metres (190,000 square feet) of comparison retail shopping to... regain York's retailing position which has recently been lost."

Critics argue the document is still too vague and does not set out clearly enough what restrictions there should be.

The aim, concedes Philip Crowe, of York Tomorrow, was to be open-ended so as to give developers freedom to come up with interest-ing schemes. "But I think the planners could have been a little bit more prescriptive," he said.

:: The consultation

THE draft planning brief for the Eye of York was initially approved by the city council's planning committee in August last year.

The council's "vision" for the site, as set out then, called for a "high quality retail-led mixed use development with quality civic open space which will enhance the vitality and viability of the city centre, whilst ensuring the settings and views of the internationally important buildings adjoining the site and the River Foss are protected and enhanced".

The brief was put out to public consultation between August and October last year.

Copies were made available in all local libraries and at the council's offices in St Leonard's Place, as well as being posted on the council website.

Copies of the brief were also sent to a range of organisations, including Yorkshire Forward, the Environment Agency and English Heritage.

A total of 105 representations were received. Comments made included:

:: On retail:

"If this development was retail-led it would be like tearing the historic heart out of the city" - Member of public

"In a city of York's national and international stature retailing cannot be the overriding consideration" - Member of public

"Do not need any more shops" - Various responders

"Fully support objective of retail-led development" - York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce

:: On the "vision"

"The vision and objectives are sound, reflecting the overarching need for the wellbeing of the historic environment to be at the centre of any guide to redevelopment" - English Heritage

"The brief still shows little respect for the history of the castle area" - Member of the public

"The brief is too vague. The council needs to be more forthright in its aspirations for the site" - York Green Party

:: On Clifford's Tower

Eight respondents objected to a description in the original draft planning brief that Clifford's Tower appeared "lost in space." A typical comment was: "Clifford's Tower is spectacular and imposing by the very fact that it is silhouetted against the sky. This is impressive by day and night and the views of it are one of the reasons why it is such an iconic building for tourists and citizens."

Referring to previous Coppergate II proposals which were rejected by a government inspector:

"The brief fails to address several of the issues raised by the inspector at the inquiry" - Member of the public

A number of changes have been made to the planning brief following the consultation. These include the dropping of the words "retail-led" from the crucial vision statement and a statement instead that any development should meet "the retail needs of the city".

:: What the planning inspector's report had to say about Coppergate II

Council-backed plans for what was known both as Coppergate II and Coppergate Riverside were rejected by government planning inspector Tony Bingham in September 2003. These would have involved transforming the land surrounding Clifford's Tower and in Piccadilly into 250,000 square feet of retail space, restaurants, offices, flats, leisure facilities and a multi-storey car park.

The planning inquiry lasted many weeks, and was estimated at the time to have cost the city council £220,000.

In his decision, Mr Bingham was scathing about many aspects of the scheme. His comments included:

"I consider that the design approach is totally unacceptable in the context of the historic setting of the application site."

"The design has essentially been driven by commercial considerations. I appreciate the need for any such development to prove viable... however, on a site with such historic associations and heritage value it seems to me that the historic environment should have been the overriding consideration."

"The proposed development would unacceptably impinge on the settings of the listed buildings, Clifford's Tower and the Female Prison, while also severely detracting from the character of the Central Historic Core Conservation Area."

"It is suggested that the proposed development would result in benefits to York. Such benefits would include improvement to York's offer as a shopping destination, increased attraction to visitors, economic and physical regeneration, improved pedestrian links, upgrading of the city's transport system and the creation of employment.

"I have weighed these benefits against the heritage considerations to find that they are not overriding when seen against the need to protect this site of national importance and international renown."

Updated: 10:34 Wednesday, March 22, 2006