Agenda item

This application seeks outline consent for a Nursing Home (Class C2). Whilst all matters are reserved, illustrative proposals have been submitted. The revised proposals show a 3 storey, pitched roofed building with vehicular access from Princess Road. Refuse/recycling areas and 20 parking spaces are included with a turning space for emergency vehicles. A dilapidated bungalow on the site would be demolished. The proposal is speculative. [Site Visit] [Strensall Ward].

Members considered an application for outline consent for  a nursing home. Whilst all matters are reserved, illustrative proposals have been submitted. The revised proposals show a 3 storey, pitched roofed building on the front of the site, stepping down to 2.5 stories in the central section and lowering to two stories at the rear, ace for emergency vehicles. The proposal is speculative. A dilapidated bungalow on the site would be demolished.

Officers updated with the following information:

• The report states that Councillor Kirk had called the application in, but it had previously been called in by Councillor Alexander who objects on the grounds of inadequate parking, the site being identified for housing and intrusiveness due to height.
• Paragraph 4.7 (b) on page 7 incorrectly refers to the height of the central section of building as 2.4m. The correct height is 11.8m.
• There are changes to proposed conditions 3,7,11,19 and 20.
• Officers had been waiting for information on surface water drainage. Details had now been submitted to show that adequate drainage works can be provided within the site (consisting of on-site storage and controlled discharge into the sewer) and without damage to protected trees. The drainage proposals were tabled for Members to consider.
• Since the officers report was circulated a further 16 objections had been received which reiterated concerns already raised.
• A petition of 525 signatures had been submitted. The petitioners object to a nursing home being developed on the site and support the site being used for housing as set out in the Strategic Land Availability Assessment dated February 2009. Officers advised Members that this assessment does not recommend that the site be used for housing, it identifies the site as being suitable for housing and therefore little weight should be given to this assessment.
• Members had received a selection of annotated photographs from residents at the site visit which highlighted the locally held concerns.

Following the update, Members had a detailed discussion with Officers regarding drainage for the site. Officers confirmed that details of drainage arrangements had been received and they were satisfied with them.

Representations in objection to the application were heard from a Local Resident, a representative for the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Strensall Parish Council, a Ward Councillor and  the prospective Parliamentary candidates for York Outer. They raised the following concerns:

• The site is too constrained for a Nursing Home and close to the boundaries of nearby housing.
• There are no other buildings of this large size and scale in the area.
• The site would be better suited to housing.
• There could be a loss of amenity for local residents in  a semi rural area.
• The building would be 30 metres away form a Conservation Area and therefore the site is an unsuitable location for a large building.
• A number of trees would be under threat.
• The existing drainage problems in the area would be exacerbated.
• Whether York currently requires another Nursing Home and whilst City of York Council are still in the process of establishing a new care policy. Therefore the consideration of the application should be deferred.

Representations in support of the application were received from the applicant who advised the Committee that in his opinion, the area was suitable for a Nursing Home and that drainage issues had been dealt with sufficiently and the loss of trees had been minimised.

Members felt that they could not support the application due to the size and scale of the proposed building. The close proximity of the site to residential properties would mean that the building would have a detrimental impact on the amenity and outlook of adjacent occupiers.

Councillor King supported the Officer recommendation and moved approval. This motion was lost when put to the vote. Councillor Moore moved refusal of the application which was seconded by Councillor Taylor. When put to the vote, the application was refused.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                  It is considered that the proposal, by virtue of the size and extent of the building footprint and its excessive scale and massing, would adversely affect the amenity and outlook of the occupiers of adjacent residential properties and would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Thus would conflict with Central Government advice on design contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 (“Delivering Sustainable Development”) and policies GP1, GP10 and C1 of the City of York Draft Local Plan.