Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting CHNEWS to 80360, or email
Flats plan for Burnside House, Skipton, refused
9:00am Friday 12th October 2012 in News
A controversial proposal to build six flats in the grounds of Burnside House in Skipton has been turned down.
Cawder Construction was seeking permission to build a free-standing two-storey block of six, two-bedroom flats in the grounds of Burnside House, which was converted into retirement accommodation for the over 55s about six years ago.
Marcus Catling, who was representing several Burnside House residents, told a meeting of Craven District Council’s planning committee: “This application breaches the integrity of Burnside House by planting a big slab of building in front of it. It would seriously diminish the amenity of the area and would represent the worst of 1960s institutional building.”
He also said the plan would result in the removal of a “magnificent” oak tree.
Tony Coupe, speaking on behalf of Cawder Construction, said: “This would bring an undeveloped part of Burnside House into use and would result in the construction of six desperately needed retirement homes. We are sorry the proposal calls for the loss of one tree, but we will provide two substantial trees in its place.”
Planning officers had recommended refusal.
In a report to the meeting, they said that the aim of the 2005 conversion plan was to sympathetically restore the badly fire damaged former children’s home and preserve the site’s landscaped frontage onto Carleton Road.
“The application site is part of the prominent area of attractive landscaped frontage which had been protected from development in the 2005 design approach,”they added.
Proposing refusal, Coun Alan Sutcliffe (Cons) said: “This would be a complete and utter desecration of the conservation area.”
Committee chairman Coun Richard Welch (Cons) said: “When I pulled into the drive during a site visit, I thought ‘what a lovely setting’. I can’t think of a worse place to stick a building. This is a nice setting that wants to be maintained.”
Councillors refused the application on the grounds that the bulk of the building would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.