Agenda item

Alterations and extensions of existing GP surgery to provide additional consulting, treatment and administration rooms and a dispensing pharmacy following demolition of existing dwelling (3 North Lane) and erection of cycle storage, new car park and improved vehicular access. [Huntington/New Earswick]

Members considered a full application by Mr J McEvoy for alterations and extensions of existing GP surgery to provide additional consulting, treatment and administration rooms and a dispensing pharmacy following demolition of existing dwelling (3 North Lane) and erection of cycle storage, new car park and improved vehicular access.

In their update to Members, Officers reported that a lease had been signed between the Health Centre and the Sports and Social club to allow patient and staff car parking to occur at the club. However, the agreement had yet to be finalised although it was understood that the Parish Council had no objections to the sub lease, this needed to be confirmed formally. Officers added that if Members were minded to approve the application that authority be delegated to Officers to issue the decision once all legal formalities were concluded.

They added in response to comments received, that all documentation associated with the application had stated that the application included a dispensing pharmacy. Furthermore, this was considered to be ancillary to the principal use of the building as a  Health Centre. In their opinion the pharmacy could not be reasonably considered as being a separate use  as its main function would be to dispense prescriptions prescribed at the health centre. It was also considered that the scale of the pharmacy was small and therefore would only form a small part of the overall scheme.

They also informed the Committee that the Council’s Highways Department had no problem regarding deliveries to the pharmacy as the potential effect on traffic would be intermittent and short lived, that delivery vehicles would be able to park in the car park and therefore would cause minimal disruption to the free flow of traffic.

Representations in objection were received from Bill Kochhar, a local pharmacist. He made reference to two emails that had been circulated to Members both prior to and at the meeting. These were attached to the agenda, which was subsequently republished after the meeting. He highlighted to Members that the proposed demolition of the bungalow at 3 North Lane, in order to extend the Health Centre would deplete existing housing stock in the city.

He also expressed further concerns that the narrow walkway between the social club and the surgery was unsafe and questioned where patients would park after 6.30 pm.

Members asked if the social club wanted to develop the parking space offered to the health centre if they could do. Officers responded that as the lease could not be controlled by a planning condition it would not be possible to place further restrictions on the social club.

Further representations were received in objection from Ian Domville. He spoke about the government policy of 100 hour pharmacy contracts awarded by the NHS. He reported that this policy had been withdrawn. He therefore questioned why the proposed pharmacy would be operating for 100 hours.

Some Members noted that there had been no indication as to the opening hours of the surgery and asked whether the surgery building would have to be open in order to access the pharmacy. Officers responded that the potential existed to shut one area of the building but that both parts of the facility would use the same entrance.

Additional representations in objection were received from Dominic Page, a local pharmacist’s agent. He felt that the 100 hours of operation for the pharmacy was excessive in a residential area, in that it would lead to an increase in traffic and noise at night. He also felt that the identification of the pharmacy as ancillary to the surgery was incorrect as it could be accessed independently of the surgery building.

Representations were received from the applicant, John McEvoy. He explained to Members that the ancillary pharmacy would not have a negative impact commercially on other pharmacies because the nearest chemists to it were closed at lunchtimes. He added that a robust agreement had been signed with the Sports club to address parking concerns, and that this would be in effect over 38 years and that the Health Centre would pay £2000 a year to the club for the provision of parking for its patients.

Members asked the applicant a number of questions including;

·        What alternative arrangements were available to patients if the pharmacy did not open?

·        If the pharmacy could operate for less than 100 hours according to government legislation?

·        If the pharmacy could not open for the same amount of time as the GP surgery?

The applicant explained to the Committee that patients would have to travel out of the area if the pharmacy on site did not open. In response to the two questions about times of operation of the two facilities, the applicant explained that they were advised by the local NHS that in order to extend their opening hours they had to be granted a 100 hour contract. In addition, it was reported that proposed government policies would extend GP opening hours, and therefore the extended time of operation of the pharmacy would reflect this. 

Members felt that their previous concerns regarding the application had been satisfactorily addressed.

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved and authority be delegated to Officers to issue planning consent once legal formalities in relation to additional parking at the Health Centre are concluded.

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

-      Principle of Development

-      Design and Visual Impact

-      Car and Cycle Parking

-      Neighbouring Amenity

As such the proposal complies with Policies GP1, H9, C1 and T4 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.