Agenda item

Erection of 2 storey GP surgery building after demolition of existing building. [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application from The Partners York Medical Group for the erection of a 2 storey GP surgery building after demolition of the existing building.

Officers advised that additional letters of objection had been received from residents of 29,42 and 44 Moorcroft Road raising the following issues:-

• Double yellow lines should be laid to the front of the surgery and around the corner with Bramble Dene. This should be considered as part of the planning application and not after any plans have been passed.
• Design of the building is not in character with the surrounding buildings
• Loss of privacy from the windows in the upper floor
• Increased traffic and parking problems
• Trees and shrubs had to be removed when the rear extension to the existing surgery was added
• Damage to adjacent garden and noise disturbance, loss of privacy during building works.
• If permission is granted hours of construction should be restricted to between 9-5, with no weekend working.

An e-mail from Councillor Holvey was circulated to Committee Members. He acknowledged that the application was of benefit to the wider area and that the surgery was a valuable resource to the community but raised some issues that would have negative impacts on neighbours. He stated that there were grounds for refusal with the building changing to a full 2 storey, moving much closer to existing properties and also now overshadowing a neighbour (in para 4.6), also with the increased parking that will worsen an already problematic situation.  However, he stated that if the committee is minded to approve, the following issues should be taken into account. 

1)     “There is a significant issue of parking on the road outside the property which is on the No.12 bus route, the Highways comments should be taken on board and a full consultation should occur with local residents (funded by the scheme) which will allow the issue of restrictions to be looked into.  I would suggest that the restrictions should be the full length of the road either side (from the no12 bus stop outside the garage to the next corner) which would ensure that people would use the car parking facilities behind the shops.  Using single lines rather than double yellow, with restrictions between 8am and 6pm Mon-Fri and 8am-11am on Saturday, would also lessen the impact on local residents.

2)     There are issues around privacy with the surgery being so close to other properties, steps should be taken regarding the windows being partly open and also translucent glass where needed.

3)     Construction needs to be of minimal impact to neighbours, I welcome the restrictions regarding times of work but there are also concerns around impact on surrounding gardens and wildlife (with an RSPB recognised garden in situ), could the committee please address these concerns.”

Representations were received from a local resident in objection to the application. He raised concerns that the timescale had not allowed for residents to be properly consulted. He stated that the proposals would lead to an increase of traffic on a residential road which is also a main bus route. He asked Members to consider parking arrangements for patients, stating that that there was no parking provision onsite and queried whether nearby car parks could be used and signage put up to direct patients to use these,.

Further representations were also heard from a neighbour at a next door property in objection to the application. He stated that the proposals would reduce the gap considerably between the GP surgery and his house to less than 1m which would make access for maintenance to his property difficult. He also raised concerns that noise may reverberate from the passage if used frequently and it may become a rubbish trap. He informed Members that water drains very slowly after heavy rain therefore there could be an increased flood risk. He advised that he had raised his concerns with York Medical Group and 2 consultation meetings had taken place but since the plans had been finalised in December, they had not consulted with neighbours on the size of the gap or other issues. 

Representations were received from a GP at York Medical Group, the applicant, in support of the application. He explained that in last few years the building has fallen below the standard they would like to provide to patients and in a recent  PCT report, the building failed to meet minimum standards in 9 out of 10 areas. He explained that they had looked at 3 options:-

1.         Renovating building - but too much work required to bring up to required standard

2.         Moving to another location - but surgery in optimum location for local community and no other suitable alternatives available.

3.         Rebuild surgery from scratch – this would provide the best solution.

He stressed that the Group were not planning a large expansion in manpower and that there would be no increase in the number of doctors or nurses but that their aim was to create a greater diversity in services on offer to patients. He stated that therefore traffic should not increase. He responded to Members queries regarding number of patients and staff and how those people travelled to the surgery.

Member discussed the following issues relating to traffic and parking concerns:-

• Desire to park as close as possible to surgery could lead to potential increase in frustration of drivers and increase in accidents in area.
• Possibility of directing patients and staff to use a local car park.
• Possibility of transport team investigating introduction of parking restrictions on road - Single yellow lines/double yellow lines/disabled spaces discussed.

Members agreed that it would be doing the community a disservice if the application was not approved and the surgery was forced to move but raised concerns over the lack of pre-application consultation and stated that a lot of the neighbours concerns could probably have been resolved if this had taken place. They indicated that some residents had approached the practice to view their concerns but had felt that nothing had been done to address them.

Officers noted that while it was not the applicant’s current intention to increase staff and therefore patients, an increase in consulting rooms may lead to increase in patients in future.

In relation to the property at no 38, Members acknowledged that many properties only had a 1m gap in between them, which was sufficient for maintenance, therefore this could not be used as a reason for refusal however they raised concerns about the roofline and loss of light to no.42 Moorcroft Road although noted that this was exacerbated by the existing rear extension to the property.

Councillor Galvin moved and Councillor Horton seconded a motion to approve the application. On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Councillor Reid moved and Councillor Crisp seconded a motion to defer the application due to the effect on the neighbour at 42 Moorcroft Road.

RESOLVED:             That the application be deferred until a future meeting.

REASON:                  Due to the effect on the neighbour at 42 Moorcroft Road.