Agenda item

This application is for the erection of a one and a half storey pitched roof ancillary building for use as a residential care home at Harlington House. [Fulford]

Members considered a full application by Milewood Healthcare Ltd for the erection of a one and a half storey pitched roof ancillary building for use as a residential care home (revised application).

This application had been previously refused by the Committee in March 2010.

Officers circulated an update to Members regarding an alteration to a condition and responses received from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and the Council’s Drainage Engineer. This update was attached to the agenda after the meeting, which was then republished online.

Representations were heard from a local resident, objecting to the application on the grounds of a loss of daylight to neighbouring properties.

Further representations in objection were heard from another local resident,  who was concerned that the proposed use may pose a threat to the safety and security of her family.

A representative of Fulford Parish Council spoke in objection to the applications on the grounds that the footprint of the proposed building had not significantly changed since the previous submission, and constituted overdevelopment.

The applicant spoke in support of the application, noting that  the revised application showed a decrease in the size of the building and an increase in garden areas, and that  York was in need of the  type of facility that was being proposed.

Councillor Aspden spoke as the Ward Member. He said that he felt that the application was unsuitable because of;

• The lack of amenity space
• Overdevelopment in a conservation area
• The lack of a suitable distance between the boundary wall and adjacent neighbours
• Issues of road safety due to the shared drive between the property and adjacent neighbours
• The feeling of a lack of adequate consultation between  the applicants and local residents.

In response to a question, officers confirmed that in their view the application site was not “greenfield” land and still fell within the definition of previously developed land by virtue of its previous use.

Some Members asked for clarification on the shared access to the property and the garden at the front being used as an amenity space for residents.

Members were informed that the driveway to the property was on private land, but that the occupants of the property to the east also had uninterrupted rights of access. In response to a question from Members, the applicant confirmed that hedges and flowerbeds were currently being planted in the front garden of the property so that it could be used as an amenity space for residents.

Some Members considered that although the access issues had not been resolved in the resubmission of the application, there had been  similar issues in the past when the site was used as offices and as a shirt factory. Other Members acknowledged that the building had been reduced in size, and therefore felt that it would not be overdominant.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to: loss of employment premises; affect on residential amenity; impact on visual amenity; affect on heritage assets; nature conservation; access, parking and highway safety; drainage issues; and flood risk. As such the proposal complies with Central Government Guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk and Policies SP6, GP1, GP4A, GP9, GP15A, HE2, HE10, NE1, NE6, NE7, H17 and E3B of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.