Agenda item

This application is for a change of use from office (use class B1) to residential care home (use class C2) with internal and external alterations, two storey rear extension and dormers to rear roof slope. [Site Visit]

Members considered an application for the change of use from an office to a residential care home with internal and external alterations, two storey rear extension and dormers to the rear roof slope.

Members were informed by Officers that this application and the following application were called in by the Ward Member, Councillor Aspden, due to impact on the Fulford Conservation Area from possible overdevelopment of the site.

Members were informed by Officers that the main building on the site had been empty since 2009 and that the applicant was the current owner.

Officers also added that if Members, were minded to approve, that an external lighting condition be added to reduce the detrimental impact that this might have on neighbouring properties.

Representations in opposition to the proposal were heard from a group of local residents their concerns included;

• That the outside leisure area provided for users of the care home was very small and was surrounded by car parking and nearby housing without any separation between the two.
• That the access to the care home was narrow and that this would mean that vehicles would have to reverse on to the A19, in order to exit the site.
• That the parking bays were not large enough for the vehicles using the care home.
• That the layout of the application did not conform to planning guidelines on the reduction of the fear of crime.

Councillor Aspden spoke to the Committee as Ward Member and highlighted that the application would have a negative impact on the following issues;

• The Fulford Conservation Area.
• The amenity of local residents
• The level of traffic relating to the change of the building’s use.

He added that, if the Committee were minded to approve the application, that a condition be requested for frosted windows on the building and that the entrance to the building be moved to reduce the noise impact from delivery vehicles to nearby properties.

Representations in support of the application were heard from the applicant’s agent. He stated how he was happy to answer questions from Members on the change of use to the property and car parking. He added that he felt that the application would create employment and secure the re use of an old building.

Members asked the applicant’s agent about the extent of public consultation organised by the applicants.

The agent replied that the application had gone through pre-application discussion with Officers and that if further consultation was conducted, that similar issues would have arisen that had already been identified and addressed at the pre-application stage.

Members also asked whether the applicant would be willing to wall the boundary area between the site and neighbouring properties.

The agent replied that his clients would consider this. 

Members asked Officers about the protection of the yew tree on the site. Officers replied that a condition, if the application was approved, could be added.

Members also commented that perhaps there could have been additional consultation with the police, in reference to Anti Social Behaviour and the fear of crime around the site.

Further questions from Members to Officers included;

• What potential uses of buildings also fell into Use Class C2, which the building was highlighted as being in the Officer’s report?
• The issue of fire regulations due to the lack of a lift in the property.

Officers replied that buildings categorised under C2 usage included; hospitals, schools and training centres and secure institutions. They added that planning uses were often grouped together. However, they stated that if the application was approved that Members could request a condition in order for the building to be used solely as a residential care home.

In response to Members questions about fire regulations, Officers stated that these regulations do not form part of the planning process.

Further discussion amongst Members raised the following points;

• That there was a need for further public consultation to be conducted by the applicants.
• If conservation roof lights were installed that these would not be prominent in the streetscene.
• The traffic in the area was no worse than in other areas in the city.
• The location of the refuse bin for the proposed care home was not satisfactory
• The effect on the quality of life of local residents in relation to access to their properties(in one case particularly), would require them accessing their home across the care home entrance.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional conditions requested by Members during the meeting.

REASON:                  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to:

·        Loss of employment premises;

·        Compatibility of use

·        Effect on the residential amenity

·        Effect on heritage assets

·        Impact on visual amenity

·        Access, parking and highway safety

·        Drainage issues and flood risk

As such the proposal complies with national planning advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development(PPS1), Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing(PPS3), Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment(PPS5) and Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk(PPS25) and policies SP6, GP1, GP15A, HE2, HE3, T4, H12, H17 and E3b of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.