Agenda item

Demolition of Barleyfields and erection of 54 assisted living apartments and communal facilities; demolition of modern extensions to Ashbank and conversion to 4 assisted living apartments; associated parking and landscaping [Rawcliffe And Clifton Without Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application from P18-02072 for the emolition of Barleyfields and erection of 54 no. assisted living apartments and communal facilities; demolition of modern extensions to Ashbank and conversion to 4 no. assisted living apartments; associated parking and landscaping at Ashbank, 1 Shipton Road Clifton York.

Members were advised by officers of an additional condition that the building(s) would not be demolished until a contract for the works had been agreed by the council. The site and scheme were then outlined to Members.

Following the update, Officers were asked and clarified that:

·        There was a sufficient number of parking spaces.

·        The trees on site had been covered by the tree survey.

·        Regarding the bus stop nearby, the footways were narrow and a justifiable, affordable and deliverable solution could not be found to this.

·        Regarding the possibility of the right of way to the side of the site, other sources of funding for this could be examined.

·        Whilst there was considerable tree loss, high quality semi mature trees would be planted and the applicant would pay a green space contribution to works at the Homestead Park.

·        Electric vehicle (EV) parking was included in Condition 6.

·        With regard to provision being made for existing residents, affordable housing was included and there was no policy of the existing facility to be retained as council could only require what was required by housing policy, which had been achieved on site.

Janice Gray, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. She expressed concern about the loss of 15 affordable housing units. She explained that there was a pelican crossing past the entrance to the site and she suggested that another rone was neededon Clifton Green. She suggested that the inclusion of senior activity equipment for the senior outdoor space would be good idea, adding that some of the S106 contribution to the Homestead Park could go towards this. She was asked and explained that the Barleyfields residents had relatives to walk them to the Homestead Park.

Liz Fowler spoke in support on behalf of the applicant. She noted that the not for profit provider owned and operated the existing Barleyfields and in considering their options deemed redevelopment the best option. The provider had acknowledged the closue of the existing scheme and had offered residents first refusal on the units. She noted the use of the site as an existing brownfield site and that it was policy compliant in regard to affordable housing.

In answer to questions raised by Members she confirmed that:

The access route would remain unobstructed.

The communal facilities included a staff kitchen and bistro and lounge for residents.

Regarding affordable units to rent, the application was policy complaint, and first refusal on the units had been offered to residents.

Cllr Smalley, Ward Member, spoke on the application noting that he was supportive of developments but concerns remained over he loss of tree canopy, the building overlooking residents and requirement for route to be maintained. He further explained concerns about applications in unparished areas that had no planning panel, which he was happy to discuss with officers. He was asked and noted that Clifton Parish Council would be happy to look at this. Concerning the bus stops, Cllr Smalley explained that the path was narrow near the bus stop and there could be a programme to make the bus stop easier to use.

Further questions were then raised by Members to which officers responded that:

·        A scheme needed to be identified for the £25k S106 contribution, and this was to be put towards the tennis club and Homestead Park. The allocation for sports provision and open space was explained.

·        Regarding an extension of the public right of way being extended to the pedestrian access along the back lane, this was a public right of way but not on a definitive map.

·        A contribution towards the bus stop had not been requested.

·        Whether some of the S106 contribution could be used towards benches depended on the specific works identified.

Following questions, a number of Members commented that it would be useful for the Executive Member for Culture to work with Officers to ensure that the S106 contribution was used for the benefit of residents.

It was:

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the below additional condition:

Additional condition

The building(s) shall not be demolished before a legally binding contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site is made and evidence of the contract has been produced to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, or in the absence of such a contract an alternative confirmation of commencement of the development has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  To ensure that the premature demolition of the buildings does not take place to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Reasons:

                     i.        Officers recognise that this is a balanced judgement. The benefits of the scheme are that it provides new residential accommodation on predominantly brownfield land and, in accordance with para. 118 of the NPPF, this should be given substantial weight. Other advantages of the scheme are the bringing back in to use of the villa; the removal of its modern and unattractive extensions; and the demolition of the Barleyfields building. The provision of modern purpose-built extra-care accommodation, where there is an identified shortfall, should also be given significant weight.

                    ii.        Weighed against these benefits are concerns about the level of tree loss within the Conservation Area, while recognising that the proposed landscaping scheme provides a high level of replacement planting; the scale of the building in relation to other buildings in the locality; overlooking to the neighbouring site; and levels of external amenity space.

                  iii.        The presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within para.11 of the NPPF requires that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. The policies referred to include those related to designated heritage assets which would include the Clifton Conservation Area. This means that the application should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

                  iv.        The proposal has been considered against the relevant NPPF policies particularly those in Section 16: Heritage Assets. When taking a balanced view, and assigning substantial weight to the provision of extra care housing on brownfield land, it is considered that the substantial benefits of the scheme would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area, tree loss, and concerns about amenity.