Agenda item

Application: 2020/0294/FULM

Location:Highfield Nursing Home, Scarthingwell Park, Barkston Ash, Tadcaster

Proposal: Proposed demolition of existing two storey care home (Class C2), and erection of replacement two storey care home (Class C2) comprising 70 single en-suite bedrooms together with associated car parking, (50 spaces), access arrangements and landscaping

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as it constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, but it was considered that there were Very Special Circumstances which justified approval of the proposal. In addition, more than 10 letters of objection from local residents had been received in response to the proposal.

The Committee noted that the application was for the proposed demolition of existing two storey care home (Class C2), and erection of replacement two storey care home (Class C2) comprising 70 single en-suite bedrooms together with associated car parking, (50 spaces), access arrangements and landscaping.

The Solicitor announced that there was an Officer Update Note that should have been circulated to the Committee, which had now been published on the Council’s website and shared with Members. Officers displayed the Update Note on screen for the Committee to read, and the Principal Planning Officer took the Committee through it for the current item to ensure they understood the content. The Update Note set out details of an updated Table 36 (Older Persons’ Dwelling Requirements 2014 to 2037) and explanation, amended Conditions 6, 19 and 20, and gave details of an additional condition 24 relating to electric vehicle charging points.

The Committee discussed the application and asked questions relating to the Tree Preservation Order on the site, the tree survey and the subsequent classification of said trees, and discussed the various directions of vehicular access and approach to the site, including which was most appropriate for the demolition and construction traffic. Members noted that the nearby church was in use and was well preserved.

Mr Joel Turner from Barchester Healthcare Ltd., applicant, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Mr James Key, objector, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke against the application.

Members debated the application and agreed that whilst it could be considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the very special circumstances outweighed any potential harm. The Officer’s report was extensive and detailed and set out a clear case for the scheme’s approval. The Committee asked if a one way traffic system could be implemented to manage the traffic that would be accessing and leaving the site during demolition and construction, but Officers explained that the conditions set out in the report had been recommended by the Highways Officer at North Yorkshire County Council and as such, it was not advisable to deviate from these, i.e. there could be significant implications for the Tree Preservation Order if vehicles were able to access the site from the south.

Members agreed that there were sufficient conditions in the Officer’s report to control access, and that the accommodation for older people that was to be provided by the new nursing home was much needed. 

It was therefore proposed and seconded that the Committee were MINDED TO APPROVE; a vote was taken on the proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED:

                        The Committee were MINDED TO APPROVE subject to:

a)    the expiry of the press notice advertising the proposal as a departure from the Development Plan and subject to no further representations being received which raise new issues;

b)   referral of the application to the Secretary of State under The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 with the Planning Committee’s resolution to support it; and

c)    that in the event that the application was not called in by the Secretary of State, authority be delegated to the Planning Development Manager to approve the application subject to the imposition of the schedule of conditions as set out at paragraph 7 of the report and the amended and additional conditions in the Officer Update Note. The delegation would include the alteration, addition or removal of conditions from that schedule if amendment were necessary as a result of continuing negotiations and advice, and provided such condition(s) met the six tests for the imposition of conditions and satisfactorily reflected the wishes of the Planning Development Manager; and

d)   that in the event that the application was called in for the Secretary of State’s own determination, a further report would come to the Planning Committee.