Agenda item

Erection of single and two storey residential healthcare building (use class C2), to include 40 bed spaces, associated treatment rooms, car parking, servicing areas and landscaping. [Micklegate Ward]

Members considered an application for the erection in Micklegate Ward of a single and two storey residential healthcare building (use class C2), to include 40 bed spaces, associated treatment rooms, car parking, servicing areas and landscaping. The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application.

[Cllr Cuthbertson joined the meeting at 19:10]

In response to questions from members, officers stated that:

·        That it was difficult to attempt to exactly match the brick colour of surrounding historical buildings, therefore it was thought safer to choose contrasting colours.

·        The roads in the development will be primarily paved with tarmac.

·        They did not consider access to the proposed development to be an issue, and that the Highways department had not raised any objections to the application.

Public Participation

Johnny Hayes spoke in objection to the application. He spoke on the historical significance of the site in question and stated that although he had initially supported the proposal, he now felt that the design was not of high quality and did not respect its historical surroundings. He felt that the site was too small for a development of this nature and urged members to discuss deferring the application until physical site visits could be begun again.

Mary Urmston spoke in objection to the application. She stated that although the proposal was lower in height than previous applications for this site had been, she believed its negative impact on the area would be great. Ms Urmston felt that Historic England had not been consulted until very late into the application process and that symmetry in the design should have be insisted upon, as with previous applications. She raised concerns about the amount of open space that the development would build on and stated that the site was too small for proposals. Finally, she felt the design was inappropriate and expressed the need for conditions around lighting.

Celia Smith stated that she was not speaking in objection to the application, but raising concerns about aspects of it. She felt that the application contained a number of flaws, raising concerns about a lack of amenities, its large footprint, and she felt it was not in keeping with the character of the local area. Ms Smith believed that the roadway would not be appropriate for the development and had concerns about drainage, flooding and noise pollution. She asked that if the application were approved that the advice from Historic England around landscaping and green space be adopted.

Keeley Mitchell spoke in support of the application support on behalf of The Disabilities Trust, the proposed occupier. She stated that residential care at The Retreat, which housed 40 vulnerable patients and employed 145 staff was closing, and they had been searching for alternative facilities for years. Ms Mitchell stated that if approval was not granted, the patients would have to be moved out of York and all staff would lose their jobs. She emphasised the need for a female-only ward in York with rising demand, and explained that patients were no threat to the public, but needed extensive support from health professionals.

In response to questions from members, Ms Mitchell stated that:

·        There had been 36 patient rooms at The Retreat, while the proposed development had 40.

·        While many residents were from York and surrounding areas, there was no formal catchment area they were drawn from. It was explained that patients brought in from other areas were funded by their original local authority.

·        There were large communal spaces for residents, as well as specialist rooms for those at high risk, e.g. of suicide.

·        The female-only ward was one of only a few in the UK.

·        A built for purpose development better served the needs of residents and staff than a historic building such as The Retreat, especially in facilities such as the gym and sensory garden.

·        The shift pattern operated was a day and night shift of 12 hours each, with fewer staff on duty at night than in the day. Some staff such as administrators, speech therapists and psychologists worked Monday to Friday, 9-5.

·        Staff were encouraged to walk or cycle to work for their own health and wellbeing, and the proposed provision of parking spaces had been made clear to them.

·        The frequency of visits to residents varied greatly, but they were organised to not overlap as much as possible. Video conferencing technology was also being encouraged as an alternative to in person visits.

CarysSwanick support spoke in support of the application on behalf of the Residence (York) Management Company Ltd. She stated that the proposed development would bring benefits to all residents, and she supported it in principle, but she raised concerns around the submitted plans, which she stated were inaccurate with regards to the number and position of trees on the site. Ms Swanick requested that members add an informative note to the applicant requesting a collaborative approach to create a tree screen boundary for the site. She also requested reconsideration of the road surface, as she believed the planned black tarmac was not in keeping with the local surroundings. Ms Swanick also requested a condition on requiring a full noise survey report.

In response to questions from members, Ms Swanick stated that she recognised that cost was a factor in determining the road surface, but felt that preserving the character of the conservation area was more important.

Officers noted that the tree boundary mentioned by Ms Swanick was not related to the application, but was a previous issue related to the developer of The Residence and was not within the boundary of the land in question.

Joanna Gabrilatsou, Agent for the Applicant, spoke in support of the application. She stated that the site was ideal for this development, and this application was different to previously refused applications for the land which had been opposed by local groups, while this application was supported by the community. She further stated that the development was in keeping with the character of the area while incorporating everything it needed to serve residents. Ms Gabrilatsou also spoke on York’s history in providing care for those with mental ill-health and stated that this development would continue that legacy. She believed that noise impact of the development would be minimal and stated that spaces for electric cars and bikes would be provided. Finally, she stated that the proposed development met the objectives of the NPPF and would protect jobs in the city.

She was joined by a number of colleagues to answer questions from members regarding the application, during which they stated that:

·        The visual impact of the tarmac will be reduced as the car park will be full most of the time.

·        Conversations around the boundary as mentioned by previous public speakers were ongoing, and the applicants were committed to resolving the issue.

·        The roof was not fully sedum because some parts had to be accessed by maintenance staff.

·        The design of the building was created with the needs of residents and staff in mind, but was not solely based on any ‘NHS aesthetic’.

In response to further questions from members, officers noted that:

·        The Retreat had 48 parking spaces, while the proposed development would have 47. A travel survey of staff showed that 96 travelled by car, which when the shift pattern was accounted for meant the car park was the correct size.

·        It would not be reasonable for members to members to attach an informative note regarding the tree boundary since it was not within the bounds of the land for development.

·        Historically the land was occupied by warehouses which were described as white industrial buildings typical of the 1970s.

·        The Public Protection Officer not raised concerns about lighting around the development and the Ecology Officer had not raised concerns around the effect of lighting on local wildlife.

Following debate, it was moved by Cllr Crawshaw and seconded by Cllr Pavlovic to approve the application subject to the below conditions. A vote was taken with thirteen members in favour. The motion was carried unanimously and it was therefore:

Resolved:

i.             That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

ii.            That condition 16 be amended to retain landscaping for the lifetime of the development and an additional condition be attached with regard to external lighting to ensure it is acceptable in terms of protected species and the conservation area.