Agenda item

Erection of three-four storey 74 bedroom care home with associated parking, cycle racks and landscaping following demolition of existing public house. [Holgate]

[Note: Councillor Reid withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item and took no part in the debate or decision thereon.]

Members considered a major full application by Crown Care for the construction of a three-four storey 74 bedroom care home with associated parking, cycle racks and landscaping following the demolition of the existing Carlton Lodge Public House. 

A legal update was provided and it was explained that the application had been brought back to the committee as there had been a threat of a judicial challenge prior to the decision being issued. Therefore the report presented to Members included updates with references to sections 131, 135 and 136 of the NPPF.

Officers provided an update to Members. Members were advised of a number of typographical updates and were given clarification on the shortfall in care beds. Officers further clarified that:

·        Whilst the York Open Planning Forum Local List is not adopted it can still be a material consideration, as demonstrated in paragraph 5.22 of the Committee report. As detailed in the report the building merits consideration as a non designated heritage asset.

·        Reference to other potential sites for the location of the care home, such as Oakhaven was not considered to be a material planning consideration.

·        A potential condition requiring the letting of contracts prior to the demolition of the building should be written as a negative ‘grampian’ style condition to ensure enforceability. Alternatively the control could be secured by a section 106 agreement.

·        The application has been assessed on its merits and it is not necessary to carry out an assessment of alternative sites.

·        In relation to reference to the Habitats Regulations, all reference should refer to the 2017 Habitat Regulations which came into force on 30th November 2017. Officers have had regard to the Natural England advice about consultation with them. This directs the LPA to the Natural England Standing Advice (this covers the protected species involved and therefore no further level of consultation with them has been undertaken), and to the LPA Ecologist.

·        A further representation had been received which expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of the facilities in the cinema, dining/lounge areas for 74 people.

·        Members had also received a letter from the Victorian Society advising that more weight to the Carlton Tavern being a non-designated Heritage Asset and a viable public house as an Asset of Community Value.

·        A letter had also been received from the owners of the Carlton Tavern, Marstons Brewery in which they confirmed that a bid was made but not accepted and they have a binding legal agreement with Crown Care which will be in place whilst a planning decision is reached.

Louise Ennis, a local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and referred to the NPFF in stating that the Carlton Tavern’s value as a community asset outweighed the benefit of a care home. 

Mike Heyworth (Council for British Archaeology) spoke on behalf of Victorian Society in objection to the application. He stated that the Victorian Society strongly objected to the demolition of the Carlton Tavern on the grounds of it being a non designated heritage asset and he cited sections 131 and 135 in support of this. In response to a question regarding the evidence of the viability of the Carlton Tavern, Mike Heyworth explained that there was an alternative bidder and the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) considered it to be a viable public house.

Dr Duncan Marks, representing York Civic Trust, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that York Civic trust maintain their strong objection to the proposed demolition of the Carlton Tavern. He noted the loss to the community of the last of the Edwardian villas on Holgate Road and the legal importance of it as a heritage asset.

Nick Love, Pub Protection Officer of York CAMRA spoke in objection to the application. He noted the huge upsurge in community interest in the Carlton Tavern and the importance of it as a community hub. He further noted the impact of the loss of the pub to the local economy.

Mr Lindsay Cowle, retired Conservation Architect spoke in objection to the application as a local resident and as an architect. He stated that the proposed care home development failed to meet required standards and the sheer mass would make it one of the largest buildings in Acomb.

Cllr Warters, Ward Councillor for Osbaldwick and Derwent, spoke in objection to the application. With reference to the NPFF, he noted the importance of the building as a non designated heritage asset and added that the care home could be built in a different location.

Roy Wallington, CYC Programme Director for Older Persons’ Accommodation then addressed the committee. He noted the need for care bed places and the potential to create a care community in the area in conjunction with the plans to develop the Oakhaven site next door which was moving forward. He noted the need for dementia care homes and added that should the care home not be given approval, there would be considerable strain on social care and health services.

In response to Member questions, Roy Wallington clarified:

·        The reasons for the closure of Willow House care home

·        Why beds at the Chocolate Works care home opened in stages

·        The different pricing structures for elderly persons’ care which ranged from £600-£700 per week to £800-£1000 per week.

·        There was a broad spectrum of care home providers in York.

·        The proposed care home could be built on a different site.

·        Planning approval of five or more care homes needed to be given in order to meet the shortfall in care home places.

·        If the care home was not given planning approval this would increase the shortfall of care beds by 10%.

Michael Ladhar, of Crown Care, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He stated that York had a shortfall of 678 residential and nursing beds and the care home would be an inclusive development. He noted that Crown Care was committed to the communities it worked in.

Mark Massey, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. He advised that options for using the existing building had been explored and it could be demonstrated that from a functionality point of view the conversion of the building was not viable. The care home would create 30fte jobs and Crown Care actively encouraged community involvement and participation.

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Massey made the following points:

·        As an architect he understood of maintaining a building of historical value, however, a balance needed to be made.

·        If the application was approved, a condition would be put in place to guarantee community use of the buildings. This was made under condition 12 in the report. Examples of the community use of other Crown Care homes were given.

·        Other sites had been looked at, including the adjacent site although the bid for this was too late.

Members went on to have a comprehensive debate about the application. In response to Member questions, Officers advised that:

·        The lift size was in line with the CQC requirements for care homes.

·        Marstons could not demolish the building without planning consent.

·        Sections 131 and 135 of the NPPF are relevant to the application and if Members considered the balance of issues weighed against approval these could be grounds for refusal of the application. 

Following discussion it was:

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Reason:     When assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole, the benefits which the care home would provide are not sufficient to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm caused by the loss of a non-designated heritage asset, an Asset of Community Value and the potential harm to the root zone of protected trees. As such the development is contrary to paragraphs 70, 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.