Agenda item

Erection of doctors surgery (use class D1) and shopping parade (use classes A1 (shops), A2 (office), A3 (restaurant/cafe), A5 (hot food takeaway) and D1 (dentist)) with associated access, car and cycle parking and earthworks [Fulford and Heslington Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major full application for the erection of a doctors surgery (use class D1) and shopping parade (use classes A1 (shops), A2 (office), A3 (restaurant/cafe), A5 (hot food takeaway) and D1 (dentist)) with associated access, car and cycle parking and earthworks.

Officers provided an update to the committee report, full details are attached to the online agenda for this meeting.  The main points were as follows:

·        The site now falls within the Hull Road Ward following a boundary review.

·        An additional consultation response had been received from North Yorkshire Police who recommended an additional condition to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the Crime Prevention Statement dated 10^th March 2015.

·        A number of amendments to conditions.

Mr Telfer had registered to speak on behalf of Badger Hill Residents Community Group. He advised that residents objected to the location of the application rather than the application itself. Residents felt that the application was a departure from originally approved plans. He referred to the associated retail which is being included in the scheme and advised that a central campus location would be more suitable but it wouldn’t be profitable. He felt that Members were being asked to consider commercial and financial issues rather than planning issues and considered that there were no special circumstances on planning grounds.

David Duncan had registered to speak on behalf of the University of York. He advised that the University required a new health centre as the existing one is too small. In relation to the retail aspect he advised that there is a lack of shops for students based on Heslington East and currently students have to cross a dual carriageway to access a shop. He acknowledged the argument that the facility should be in the centre of the campus but advised that this is not practical or financially viable.

Sam Maguire spoke as the President of York University Students Union. He advised that  currently, students on Heslington East travel 1 mile to the nearest shop and for a number of years, students have voiced their dissatisfaction with the existing facilities on campus. In relation to health care, the current health centre is too small and students and residents have to wait 2 to 3 weeks for an appointment.

Janet O’Neil spoke as the agent on behalf of the applicant. She referred to the expansion of the University and advised that current health and retail facilities could no longer cope with the numbers using them. She advised that Members should not think that this application in this location was the easiest conclusion and outlined the sequential test undertaken and the lack of other suitable sites within the campus that are viable.

Members queried a number of points in particular the arrangements for healthcare contained in the University master plan and whether the requirement for a health centre was foreseen. The agent confirmed it was included in the master plan but the document did not detail where it should be located. As the University population has expanded it had become apparent there was not the available space at the centre of the campus for such a facility. Members also queried the arrangements for the community to use the proposed surgery and the impact on existing facilities in nearby suburbs.

Members entered debate and made the following points:

·        Some Members acknowledged that although the development was in the Green Belt, the University needed to improve facilities to enable more students to live on campus. The location and retail element would enable the venture to be viable year round.

·        New facilities that could be shared with the community were welcomed.

·        Concerns were raised regarding landscaping and the impact of the development upon nearby residents and the green belt.

·        Some members had concerns about the amount of proposed parking and the additional traffic that would be generated.

·        Some Members felt that very special circumstances for development in the Green belt had not been demonstrated.

Resolved:           That the application be approved after referral to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009.

Reason:        The applicant has advanced the following other considerations, which they consider to amount to very special circumstances in respect of the proposal:

·        The proposed development is required to meet an existing and growing need for health services and convenience shopping for University of York students and staff.  Very few students have access to cars and many staff utilise non-car modes to arrive at work.  The university community needs on-site facilities so that the campus is established as an appealing place to live, work or study.

·        The University has an obligation under the section 106 agreement to make their student housing as attractive as possible in order to reduce the pressure on the city’s housing stock.  The lack of facilities for the student population has led to negative perceptions of living on this campus.

·        It is essential that it is accessible to the local community due to the need to maintain viability during University vacations.  Therefore the development is located outside of the barriered access roads and is thus outside of the allocated area designated for development in the approved masterplan.

·        A sequential test has failed to identify an alternative an alternative location which could be conveniently located for the University community and still be viable and deliverable for the operators of the health and retail facilities.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development for the purposes of para 88 of the NPPF, and by definition causes harm to the Green Belt. Because of its location the proposed development would result in some limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt and encroachment into the countryside, but is not considered to conflict with other green belt purposes set out at para 80 of the NPPF. More significant harm would be caused to the landscaped setting at the Field Lane entrance to the campus of the East Campus, however the layout, design and proposed landscaping will help to mitigate this harm to some degree. 

It is considered that the other considerations put forward by the applicant outlined above, together with the mitigation of other harm through planning conditions clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, and thereby amount to very special circumstances to allow the inappropriate development in the York Green Belt.