Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director - Planning – Community Development Services

Considered:-

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 58 new extra care units (Class C2) and community facilities building, creation of access, parking, pond and hard and soft landscaping, associated highways works and communal gardens/allotments on land at Carlton Fields, Station Road, Kirk Hammerton, York, YO26 8DQ.

The Principal Development Management Officer confirmed that there were two officer updates on the application since the agenda had been published, the first update was in relation to the financial contribution in terms of public open space and the village hall contributions; the contribution had been updated as the previous calculation had not included a contribution for the village hall. 

The second update was an amendment to the officers second reason for refusal, where the additional wording had been added: the application site was considered to be an unacceptable and unsustainable location for older person's accommodation due to the overall lack of accessibility to regular public transport suitable for older people.  The site was not in reasonable walking distance of an appropriate range of community services and facilities and insufficient facilities were provided on site. There was no crossing across the A59 to the bus stop, no footpath along the northern side of the A59, insufficient street lighting along parts of Station Road, and the proposed footpath to the railway station did not demonstrate acceptable width to cater for ambulatory issues. The application was therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy HS4.

The agent for the applicant, Stephen Ladyman, spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-

• Members sought clarification on the reasons why officers considered that the application was a Class C3 use rather than Class C2, as applied for.
• It was queried that if officers had considered the development to be Class C2 use, would the proposed application have been more acceptable.
• Members questioned if officers had looked at the application, if it had been considered to be a Class C2 use, in the context of the relevant policy, Local Plan Policy HS4.
• If the application had been accepted by the Council as a Class C2 use, would the site be considered to be outside the development limits.
• The reasons why the submitted drainage strategy documents failed to demonstrate that the strategy was acceptable.
• In terms of sequential testing, Members queried why the applicant would be requested to source an alternative piece of land, that they may not own, to carry out a sequential test upon.
• Members felt that the scheme was ideal, however the proposed site was not a suitable location.

The decision:-

That planning permission be REFUSED.

Reason:-

The Committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the Principal Development Management Officer in section 12 of the report, and the officer update note.

Voting Record:-

A vote was taken, and the motion was declared carried with 4 votes for and 2 votes against.