Agenda item

Change of use from hotel (use class C1) to 8no. flats (use class C3) with management office and single storey extension to side/rear (Guildhall) (Site Visit).

Members considered a full application from Mr Matt Cullen for the change of use from hotel (class C1) to 8 flats (class C3) with management office and single storey extension to the side/rear.

Officers provided an update to Members of the Sub-Committee highlighting the following points:

-      That 5 additional letters of objection had been received including a new issue of ‘noise disturbance from rooms across party walls’.

-      That the site is to be removed from the Residents’ Parking Zone.

Mr Roger Lake addressed the committee regarding the application and processes. Mr Lake highlighted that it was difficult to follow planning applications and it was unclear when certain documents had been received by the planning authority. Mr Lake was concerned that people inexperienced with planning applications would struggle to have their say.

Ms Jude Warsop then addressed the committee in objection to the application. Ms Warsop made the following points with regard to the application:

-      That the proposal, with 8 new flats and potential for 11 new residents with staff and visitors would have a detrimental impact on their community.

-      The change from C3 to C3B use significantly alters the proposal

-      The development is too dense and incomparable to that of the hotel that currently exists in this space

-      The committee report states that there were no comments from the Design Conservation Sustainable Team, however the CAAP minutes from 5 December stated that they did object and that it was regrettable that the properties were not being returned to family homes and that the proposal did not fit the area, making section 4.12 and 4.13 of the report incorrect.

-      Public Protection have approved this development, under the proposal for full time supervision to control noise issues, the plans state that full time supervision is not mandatory.

-      Local Development Plan section HH8 states that planning permission will only be granted for the conversion of dwellings to flats where it would not have an adverse effect on the neighbouring amenity. This proposal does not fulfil this test.

Mr Martin Legg then spoke in objection to the application. Mr Legg made the following comments:

-      The development is too big and is out of proportion for the street

-      The use of these properties should return to family homes

-      The committee report fails to apply the draft SPD on ‘sub division of dwellings’.

-      The 2005 Local Plan states that approval should not be granted where it may cause an adverse effect on neighbouring amenity, this has not been considered.

Matt Cullen and Colin Swaine, the developers, then spoke in support of the application. Mr Swaine highlighted that the developers (Merston) only develop properties in partnership with local authorities where a need has been identified. The company specialise in supported living accommodation.

In response to Member questions Mr Cullen and Mr Swaine informed the committee that:

-      with the proposed user groups, a lift would not be necessary due to residents not having physical disabilities.

-      The back of the property will be redeveloped to include an outdoor amenity space for residents.

-      There will be a recycling area in the courtyard and parking will be sufficient for staff expected on site.

Mr Andy Kenny, Independent Support, then spoke in support of the application, making the following points:

-      That Independent Support are an experienced provider of supported living schemes for adults with a range of needs.

-      That this scheme has been designed alongside City of York Council’s Adult Social Care Commissioners for people with Autism or Asperges, to develop independence as a short term measure prior to moving into their own accommodation in the community.

In response to Member questions Mr Kenny made the following points:

-      Should the proposal go ahead, Independent Support would engage with the local community and apologised for having not engaged with residents before this point.

-      It has been agreed with York that a very specific client group has been identified and any other client groups would not be acceptable.

-      Based on experience of supported living facilities, it would not be expected that noise would be any more significant than usual residential flats, the client group would have no history of alcohol or substance misuse or Anti-Social Behaviour.

-      That the parking on site would be sufficient for carers and workers on site and due to the central location, would not expect all staff to drive.

-      Based on the needs of the client group, high volume of professionals would not be expected on site in addition to carers, the focus of the facility is on increasing independence.

In response to the speakers, officers clarified that the Design Conservation Sustainable Team had no comments to make, the comments in the CAAP minutes were comments from the advisory panel themselves.

Some members were satisfied that the mitigations with regard to parking, including the removal of the property from the Resident Parking Scheme and the fact that it was already a guesthouse, satisfied the concerns regarding increased traffic or difficulty parking. Members were also satisfied that the level of noise created by this development would not impact the community.

Other members still had concerns regarding the level of amenity space and were not convinced that the development was comparable with the current guesthouse. It was suggested by the committee that an informative be added to guide future managers of the property to engage with the community and local residents.

Members felt that this was a welcome development, considering the clear need for further supported accommodation in the City.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. It was therefore:

Resolved:  That approval be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional informative regarding future community engagement.

Reason:     The proposed use is considered to support the Government’s objective to boost the supply of homes and address the needs of groups with specific housing requirements (para.59 NPPF) and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development through supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities and by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations (para.8 NPPF). Changes to the use of the property and minor extension to the rear are considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal meets relevant policy within the Local Plan and NPPF and is therefore recommended for approval subject to planning conditions.