Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...

proposed care home. This part of the scheme cannot be justified in terms of the need to
provide least disturbance to existing residents, as it would provide accommodation over
and above that which already exists at Highfield. In addition the close care element does
not arise out of necessity of complying with new legislation but merely arises from the
philosophy of care of the applicant.
Although the applicant has stated that the close care apartments would enable some form
of care to be given over an extended period it does not cut out the need to relocate people
at some stage of their life, if only from home to the close care unit, or from the close care
apartments to other accommodation within the nursing home.
Without the close care apartments, the height, scale and mass of the proposed building
would be considerably reduced and the northern wing would effectively become single
storey. As such it can be readily demonstrated that contrary to the applicant’s assertion
that the close care apartments would provide ‘no additional impact on the greenbelt[sic]’,
that this element of the proposal, by virtue of adding considerable bulk and mass, would
have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt
As such it is concluded that only limited weight should be given to this issue.
In relation to the impact on the listed chapel, an assessment of this is given below. It
concludes that, when taking into account the historical relationship of the chapel to its built
surroundings, and the increase in the scale and massing of the proposed buildings that the
proposal would have at worse a neutral effect and at best a marginal improvement on the
setting of the listed building. Therefore although the proposal would preserve the setting
of the listed building the ‘improvements’ to the setting would not be of sufficient weight to
constitute very special circumstances.
As such it is considered that only limited weight should be afforded to this issue.
Against the above considerations weight should be given to the harm by reason of
inappropriateness. PPG2 states that the Secretary of State will afford substantial weight to
the harm by reason of inappropriateness and it is considered that there is no reason by
virtue of the nature and circumstances of this case, why the Council should adopt a
different approach. As such it is considered that substantial weight should be afforded to
harm by reason of inappropriateness. In addition to this significant weight should be
afforded to the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land
within it. Furthermore some weight should be given to the harm by reason of the
unsustainable nature of the proposal.
On balance it is therefore concluded that the claimed benefits arising from the scheme in
relation to avoidance of disturbance to residents and the setting of the listed building do
not outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and to the openness of the Green
Belt. Therefore it is concluded that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that very
special circumstances exist and the proposal is considered unacceptable.
2. Effect on the Openness of the Green Belt
Under Policy GB4 proposals for development in the green Belt, or which are conspicuous
from an area of Green Belt, will only be permitted where the scale, location materials and
design of any building or structure or the laying out of land would not detract from the open
character and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
370