Agenda item

This application seeks permission for the erection of 62 bedroom care home with associated car parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing care home (resubmission of 18/02935/FULM) [Strensall]

 

Members considered a full application from Mr M Ladhar for the  erection of a 62 bedroom care home with associated car parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing care home.  The current application had been submitted in October 2019 and following concerns raised by the case officer and local residents with regard to the scale and the impact on neighbour amenity, revised plans were submitted for consideration in February. These have been subject to a re-consultation with local residents and the relevant internal and external consultees.

 

Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 41-58 of the Agenda and reported that:

·        an additional representation had been received from Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council who considered that the revised drawings had not removed any of the objections submitted by the Parish Council and would draw your  attention to comments from the Conservation Architect, City of York Council.

·        An additional representation had been received from Cllr Doughty, Ward Member for Strensall, who supported the

representations presented by Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council and added that in recent conversations with the Director for Health and Adult Social Care he had been told that we have a changing market place in York and there had been no problem in finding care accommodation in the city. 

·        A replacement of the Drainage Condition 3 (as set out  in the resolution below)

 

Officers confirmed that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and the recommendation remains unchanged from that in the published report. 

 

Mr Richard Thackray, a neighbouring resident at Harvest Close, spoke in objection to the proposal on the grounds that his amenity would be most affected by overlooking, given the number of windows.  He considered that the terraces on the first and second floors would allow direct views into the homes and gardens on the South and West sides of the plot.

 

Mr Bryan Ford, local resident, spoke in objection on the grounds that  the proposed building was not suitable or appropriate for the area and would devalue the status of the nearby conservation area. He considered that neighbouring residents would be adversely affected by the increased impact of traffic which would lead to further deterioration of the road. 

 

Mr Jonathan Dobson, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection on the grounds that the revised proposal had not addressed concerns regarding the size and scale of the development.  The southern façade was much higher and broader than existing therefore the outlook from his kitchen would be a view of brickwork and roof. The proposed roof terraces would provide overlooking across his and neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Nick Kemp from Acanthus Darbyshire Architects, Agent for the Applicant, set out that there had been a shortfall of 576 nursing care beds in the city.  The proposal would create around 54 jobs the area.  The management at Cramcare were well established care providers with over 30 years’ experience.  They considered that concerns regarding scale and mass had been addressed.  They confirmed that there would be ample amenity space for residents.   

 

In response to questions from Members, officers confirmed that:

·        The commutable sum in relation to the Traffic Regulations Order of £5K would be secured through the s106 process five years from the commencement of building.

·        Officers were satisfied that 25 parking spaces had met the Highways requirements, there was further parking allocation for an ambulance or doctors.

·        The council’s forest engineer had not raised concerns regarding the drainage arrangements impacting upon the roots at the oak tree T7.

·        A shadow assessment had been undertaken in December 2019, this aspect had been acceptable.

·         

 

After debate, Cllr Webb moved, and Cllr Pavlovic seconded, that the application be approved subject to the Section 106 agreement, in accordance with the officer recommendation, with the addition of the conditions, informatives and guidance in relation to drainage,

 

(resolution below refers) with an amendment to Condition 8 regarding the protection of the oak tree T7, Cllrs: Craghill, Daubeney, Galvin, Melly, Perrett, Pavlovic, Webb and Hollyer all voted in favour of this motion.  Cllrs: Fisher, Orrell and Waudby and voted against this motion and the motion and it was therefore:

 

Resolved:            That the application be APPROVED subject to the Section 106 agreement and the conditions listed in the report, with the following amended, additional conditions and informative:

 

Amended Condition 7

That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Services, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair, to consult with the council’s arboriculture officer to formulate the necessary strengthened conditions following members request to protect the roots at oak tree T7.

 

A replacement of the Drainage Condition 3

No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:               So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with these details for the proper and sustainable drainage of the site.         

 

Additional Condition 26

The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

 

Reason:               In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable

drainage.

 

Additional Condition 27

Unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.

 

Reason:               So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that no foul and surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.

 

Additional informative notes: 4 drainage

i)     The public sewer network does not have capacity to accept an unrestricted discharge of surface water. Surface water discharge to the existing public sewer network must only be as a last resort, the developer is required to eliminate other means of surface water disposal.

 

ii)    The applicant should be advised that the Internal Drainage Board’s prior consent is required for any development including fnces or planting within 9.00m of the bank top of any watercourse within or forming the boundary of the site. Any proposals to culvert, bridge, fill in or make a discharge to the watercourse will also require the Board’s prior consent.

 

Design considerations

The developer’s attention is drawn to Requirement H3 of the Building Regulations 2000 with regards to hierarchy for surface water dispersal and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuD’s). Consideration should be given to discharge to soakaway, infiltration system and watercourse in that priority order. Surface water discharge to the existing public sewer network must only be as a last resort therefore sufficient evidence should be provided i.e. witnessed by CYC infiltration tests to BRE Digest 365 to discount the use of SuD’s.

 

If the proposed method of surface water disposal is via soakaways, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365, (preferably carried out in winter), to prove that the ground has sufficient capacity to except surface water discharge, and to prevent flooding of the surrounding land and the site itself.

 

City of York Council’s Flood Risk Management Team should witness the BRE Digest 365 test.

 

If SuDs methods can be proven to be unsuitable then In accordance with City of York Councils City of York Councils Sustainable Drainage Systems Guidance for Developers (August 2018) and in agreement with the Environment Agency and the York Consortium of Internal Drainage Boards, peak run-off from Brownfield developments must be attenuated to 70% of the existing rate (based on 140 l/s/ha of proven by way of CCTV drainage survey connected impermeable areas). Storage volume calculations, using computer modelling, must accommodate a 1:30 year storm with no surface flooding, along with no internal flooding of buildings or surface run-off from the site in a 1:100 year storm.  Proposed areas within the model must also include an additional 30% allowance for climate change. The modelling must use a range of storm durations, with both summer and winter profiles, to find the worst-case volume required.

 

If existing connected impermeable areas not proven then Greenfield sites are to limit the discharge rate to the pre developed run off rate. The pre development run off rate should be calculated using either IOH 124 or FEH methods (depending on catchment size).

 

Where calculated runoff rates are not available the widely used 1.4l/s/ha rate can be used as a proxy, however, if the developer can demonstrate that the existing site discharges more than 1.4l/s/ha a higher existing runoff rate may be agreed and used as the discharge limit for the proposed development. If discharge to public sewer is required, and all alternatives have been discounted, the receiving public sewer may not have adequate capacity and it is recommend discussing discharge rate with Yorkshire Water Services Ltd at an early stage.

 

In some instances design flows from minor developments may be so small that the restriction of flows may be difficult to achieve. However, through careful selection of source control or S  uDS techniques it should be possible to manage or restrict flows from the site to a minimum 0.5 l/sec for individual residential properties, please discuss any design issues with the City of York Council Flood Risk Management Team.

 

Surface water shall not be connected to any foul / combined sewer, if a suitable surface water sewer is available.

The applicant should provide a topographical

survey showing the existing and proposed ground and finished floor levels to ordnance datum for the site and adjacent properties. The development should not be raised above the level of the adjacent land, to prevent runoff from the site affecting nearby properties.

 

Details of the future management and maintenance of the proposed drainage scheme shall be provided.

 

Reason for Approval:

 

Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means approving development proposals where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

 

The proposed development does not involve a change of use given the use would remain as a care home. A need for places in care homes in this area of York has been recognised and the replacement would allow these places to be kept. The redevelopment of the site would provide a much more efficient and suitable modern building and greatly improved outdoor amenity space for residents. While concerns have been raised over the design and scale of the building, the height is similar to existing buildings in the immediate area. The size of the building is acknowledged but due to the reasonable height, the substantial set back from the public highway and the set in front the adjoining properties it is considered to be acceptable and broadly in accordance with national and local policies with regard to design. In terms of amenity, the use and number of occupiers will remain as before and due to the reduced height and siting of the majority of the building away from the boundary, impacts will be minimised. Obscure glazing will be applied to certain windows to protect privacy. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety and parking subject to condition. The proposal will also result in a more modern building that achieves the climate change policies set out in CC1 and CC2 of the 2018 Draft Plan. The site layout shows there will be an increase in soft landscaping which in turn is likely to have a beneficial impact in terms of drainage.

 

Set against this is the identified harm to the character of the Strensall Conservation Area by the siting of the building to the south west of the conservation area boundary. The building will be of a larger scale than previously and will be more visible in views out of the conservation area. However the amount of harm is considered to be modest rather than significant. The NPPF states that great weight should be attached to an identified harm to a designated heritage asset and the greater the importance of the asset, the greater the weight. Given the proposal affects the character of the conservation area from views to the outside, this is considered to further reduce the weight against granting permission to be apportioned in the planning balance. Furthermore, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of a modernised, replacement care home with improved facilities and an improved landscaping scheme for residents in an area of recognised need for care home place. The proposed design will be more energy efficient in terms of meeting the climate change policies in the 2018 Draft Plan and will result in an increased permeable area for drainage with a new drainage strategy. There are further limited public benefit in the form of temporary employment during the construction period and measures for bat habitation incorporated into the design.  The identified harm is not considered to outweigh these identified benefits. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions and a legal agreement to cover the monitoring of parking on the public highway.