Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application to demolish vacant school building and erect a 60 bed care home with car parking and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced an application to demolish a vacant school building and erect a 60 bed care home with car parking and landscaping at land off Bridge Street and Mill Lane, Otley.  The application had been referred to Plans Panel for determination due to the significance of the site and the development and its impact on the local area.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting.  Site plans and photographs were shown at the meeting.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• The proposed development was in Otley Conservation Area.
• The site would be accessed using existing arrangements.
• Members were reminded of the pre-application presentation that had been received in August 2011.  Members had been broadly supportive of the plans but had stressed that careful consideration needed to be given to residents of Manor Street.
• The proposed building was not out of scale or relatively large for the site.
• Distances between the proposed building and houses on Manor Street were in line with policy, however there were some flats that were felt to be too close.  Projections of shading from the proposed building were shown.
• There had been support from local residents and Otley Town Council for the re-use of the site and for the provision of a care home.
• Further to the problems that would be caused by shading from the proposed development, it was reported that further negotiations had been sought with the developer and that it be recommended that the application be refused.

The applicants agent addressed the meeting.  The following issues were highlighted along with responses to Members’ questions:

• The development would provide a much needed care home for Otley.
• There had been lengthy negotiations with planning officers and extensive consultation with local residents, including those on Manor Street.
• It was felt that the objections based on overshadowing should be rejected.  These objections were not made at the pre-application stage and there had been support from residents of Manor Street.
• Building work on the site could begin immediately.
• The building would have an undercroft due to the slope on the site and requirements of the Environment Agency due to the land being part of the flood plain.  The undercroft would be used for storage.
• Further options including lowering the building and using other flood proofing measures than building an undercroft.  The developer felt that the scheme proposed was reasonable and appropriate and alternative building solutions had been considered.
• Suggestions to have a T-shaped building.  It was reported that this would have to be 3 storeys and would not satisfy the operational running of a dementia care home.
• It was felt that the proposals met all design guidelines.

A Local Ward Member addressed the meeting and answered Members questions.  He acknowledged the fact that consultation had taken place with residents from Manor Street, the need for the redevelopment of the site and the provision of a care home.  There were however concerns regarding the following:

• Concern regarding the windows on the proposed building.
• Greenspace for the home’s residents would be minimal.
• The building would be unacceptable to certain properties on Manor Street and it was felt that there was no reason that it could be reconfigured to prevent loss of amenity to Manor Street residents.

Further issues discussed in response to Members comments and questions included the following:

• Suggestions that the building could be lowered by not having the undercroft – it was reported that similar overshadowing problems would still be experienced with a lower building in the same place.
• There had not been any formal letters of objection.
• There had been further negotiations with the developer since the application had been deferred in February.
• Possibility of the removal of a tree in the corner of the site so the proposed building could be moved.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per the reasons outlined in the report.