Agenda item

Change of use of existing bungalows (Use Class C2) to residential accommodation where care is provided (Use Class C3(b)) with construction of associated parking court and access driveway from Fulford Park. [Fulford And Heslington Ward]

Members considered a resubmitted, major full application, for the change of use of existing bungalows (Use Class C2) to residential accommodation where care is provided (Use Class C3(b)) with construction of associated parking court and access driveway from Fulford Park.  The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application and provided an update that covered additional representations and changes to the conditions.

Public Speakers

Verna Campbell, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She described the parking situation and driving conditions in Fulford Park and explained that another access road would cause additional congestion.

Mary Urmston, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application.  She was concerned that the plans would urbanise and therefore spoil the park. She felt that the refurbishment and subsequent rental of the bungalows and the proposed car park was for private, not public, benefit.

Jesper Phillips, a local resident, spoke in objection and raised concerns regarding the harm to protected trees, the impact on the conservation area and impact to Fulford’s heritage. 

Cllr Aspden, spoke in objection as the Ward Member for Fulford and Heslington.  He noted the similarity to the previous application which had been refused by the Committee.  He also stated his support for the bungalows return to use but, he raised concerns about the prominence of the bike store and car park and underlined the impact of the changes on the conservation area.

Cllr Juliet Koprowska spoke in objection on behalf of Fulford Parish Council.  She highlighted that the parkland was a community asset and that in her view, the public benefit did not outweigh the harm to the trees and wildlife.  She also raised concerns regarding the access road, the weight of the gates as well as the loss of the green corridor for wildlife.

Ray Haddock spoke in objection to the application and questioned the reasons for no previous refurbishment to the bungalows.  He raised concerns regarding the impact of the access road on the green space.  He stated that from an ecological point of view, the harm outweighed the public benefit.

Marc Nelson-Swift spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant, the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution Care Company (RMBI).  He explained the importance of making the bungalows accessible for residents and the reasons for not extending the residential care to the bungalows.

In response to questions from Members, the applicant gave the following answers:

·        The bungalows would be rented at the affordable rent rate of 80% of the market value and that the residents would be local, two from the council list and the rest on a first come, first served basis.

·        It was not possible to provide physical access through the care home for vulnerable adults, current resources could not be diverted from the existing residents.

·        The road way was designed as no dig in order not to damage tree roots.

In response to questions from Members, the Officers responded as follows:

·        The previously proposed route for access was a reasonable distance from the tree cover, judging by the photograph.

·        It would not usually be possible to remove a tree with a Tree Protection Order (TPO) unless it was deemed unhealthy. The removal of a tree with a TPO for planning purposes must be considered as part of the planning balance.  Any risky from construction over the root plate of a tree could be managed. The planning balance would include the loss of the trees versus bringing the bungalows back in use.

Following debate, Cllr Crawshaw moved to approve the application and this was seconded by Cllr Galvin. 

During further debate, Members noted that the applicant had made an offer to provide affordable housing and questioned if a condition could be included to ensure that this offer was adhered to.  The Officer confirmed that it had not been included in the recommendations as current planning policy does not apply in this instance.  Should Members take the view that it was an additional public benefit, the offer would form part of the planning balance, outside of planning policy.  In the view of the Officer, it was reasonable to secure this through planning permission.

Cllr Crawshaw and Cllr Galvin, as the mover and seconder for the application, agreed that a condition or planning obligation be added to cover the affordable housing provision.

A vote was taken and with 7 votes for the motion and 4 against, the motion was passed.  It was therefore:

Resolved: That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and the conditions outlined in the report as well as the additional condition or planning obligation to secure affordable housing as outlined above.

Reason:     Special attention has been paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area and great weight given to the conservation of all relevant heritage assets. While harm is assessed as being less than substantial, the harm to the conservation area is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance. This harm has been weighed against the substantial public benefits of bringing back into use 10 homes for older people in need of care and the provision of affordable housing.  It is concluded that, subject to safeguards provided by planning conditions and a s.106 planning obligation, the substantial public benefits of bringing forward the 10 dwellings outweigh the identified harm to the conservation area and provide clear and convincing justification for approving the application. It complies with the requirements of s.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, sections 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) and 16 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF and policies H3 (Balancing the Housing Market), H9 (Older Persons Specialist Housing) and D4 (Conservation Areas) of the 2018 eLP.