Agenda item

Erection of part two/part three storey building comprising 17 extra care flats and 8 dementia care flats following demolition of no.27 St Helens Road [Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Major Full Application by Abbeyfield Society (York) Ltd for the erection of part two/part three storey building comprising 17 extra care flats and 8 dementia care flats following demolition of no.27 St Helens Road.

Officers gave an explanation of the layout of the site including access and egress to the site and buildings, car parking and the scale of the building. They advised that four trees were covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and there was a similar loss of trees to that of the previous scheme submitted. It was confirmed that there would be affordable housing on site, which would be secured by a 106 Agreement.

Deborah Sillence, a local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application. She raised concerns regarding the building height, size and proximity to local residents, the loss of open space and the detrimental effect that increased traffic to the site would bring to local residents.

Mark Chapman, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He made a number of comments in objection, suggesting that paragraph 14 of the NPPF should not outweigh GP1 of the Local Plan. He noted that the scale of the proposal was larger than that previously submitted and that 69 residents had objected to the application.

David Marshall, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He expressed concern that the building was larger than the one in the previously refused application, there had been no noise, light or shading surveys undertaken and there were other sites more suitable for the scale of development.

Roy Wallington, Programme Director - Older Person's Accommodation, City of York Council, spoke in support of the application. He explained that there was a significant shortage of care places for the elderly and an increase in the number of elderly over the coming years. He advised of the need for quality accomodation for extra care patients and dementia care patients.

In response to the question of whether extra care accomodation could be built elsewhere, there was competition for land and sites coming forward for development. He added that the application delivered extra care and enhancement to the existing care on the site.

Andrew Arnell, the applicant (and registered manager of Abbeyfield House), addressed the committee in support of the application. He explained that the proposal would provide flexible person centre care and that the application responded to the need for their services. He noted that the average age of residents is 92.

Andrew Arnell was asked and noted that Abbeyfield House was in it’s twentieth year of service.

Gareth Jackson, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He addressed how the scheme was different from previous proposals and explained the access to the site, proportional development of the site and how green space would be provided around the building.

Cllr Fenton, Ward Councillor for Dringhouses and Woodthorpe, addressed the committee to raise local residents’ concerns in relation to the application. He explained that the nature of the objections and cited the main concern as being the adverse effect that the development would have on the Wendy House children’s nursery, which would be overlooked by the proposed building.

In response to Member questions, officers clarified that:

·        Part  of the site falls under he definition of previously developed land.

·        A traffic survey had been undertaken and highways officers had been satisfied with the application.

·        The element of the development overlooking the play area of the children’s nursery was an angled view over the play area. There was not considered to be an overlooking issue.

·        With reference to the impact of construction traffic on the children’s nursery, the majority traffic was through Regency Mews.

Debate followed, during which Members acknowledged the concerns of residents and the need for extra care accomodation.  Following debate it was:

Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure 5 units of affordable housing and £5000 towards a TRO on Regency Mews.

Reason:

                                     i.        The scheme is for an extension to the existing use on site and will provide 25 units of extra care for older people. It is considered to comply with relevant policy within the DCLP, emerging Local Plan and NPPF and will fulfil a need for this type of accommodation in a sustainable location.

                                    ii.        Some harm has been identified to the character of the area and visual amenity through the loss of some of the mature landscaping on site. This impact will predominantly be to views of the site from Regency Mews as a group of trees in the middle of the site are to be removed to facilitate the development. This includes trees covered by a Tree Protection Order. The trees are not especially good individual specimens but are of group value for their softening of views of the site from Regency Mews. Replacement tree planting is proposed within the parking area which will help to reintroduce some greenery in to the view along Regency Mews. Trees along the North and East boundaries of the site will be retained.

                                   iii.        Distances between the proposed development and neighbouring properties are considered sufficient to prevent overlooking and overshadowing with the retained boundary planting helping to provide additional screening. Likewise the bulk of the building is towards the centre of the site helping to ensure there is no overbearing impact on neighbours. Increases in height towards the North of the site, as a result of bringing the structure further away from a protected tree, are still considered acceptable given the distances involved and screening provided by the tree itself.

                                  iv.        Some impact has been identified on existing residents of Abbeyfield House as a result of the proximity of the North West wing of the new development to the existing building. A distance of 13m is retained between the buildings and the new wing is approximately 13m wide. These distances are considered sufficient to ensure no significant detriment to amenity of existing residents through loss of outlook.

                                   v.        Highways impacts are not considered to be significant. Staff will access the site via the St Helens Road drive and trip generation has been shown to be little changed from the existing situation. Likewise information has been provided to indicate that changes to the use of the access off Regency Mews and the existing parking area will be minimal and will have no significant impact on the existing network. Para. 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on highway grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. There is no indication that is the case in this instance.

                                  vi.        Despite the previous planning history for the site, the clear need for this type of accommodation, sustainable location, and good quality design, clearly outweighs the harm to the character of the area through the loss of trees within the centre of the site. This is supported by changes in planning policy since the previous refusals and the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within the NPPF.