PLANNING inspectors have backed City of York Council's decision to refuse a controversial application to build a care home on the site of a pub.

Proposals for a 74 bedroom care home to be built on the site of the Carlton Tavern pub in Acomb were turned down by councillors at a meeting on December 21 2017 - despite a council planning officer recommending the scheme be approved.

The developers, Crown Care, appealed the decision with the Planning Inspectorate and also applied for costs. But planning inspector Alison Partington dismissed both appeals.

The pub is listed as an Asset of Community Value and hundreds of residents signed a petition to save it.

But in a report on today's decision, Ms Partington said none of the protected assets applied in this case. She also said the home would "make a significant contribution towards the undersupply of specialist elderly residential accommodation in the city" and that it would have "economic and social benefits."

However, dismissing the appeal, she said: "The framework highlights that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and indicates that they should be conserved so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

"The demolition of the public house would be irreversible and the harm permanent. In addition, the appeal scheme would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area."

Ms Partington also refused an application for costs from Crown Care.

A report from the planning inspectorate says the developer applied for costs on the grounds that councillors did not accept the planning officer's recommendation to approve the care home and that this "prevented and delayed development that should clearly be permitted."

But Ms Partington said: "Whilst the officer’s report recommended the application be approved, it is clear that this is a finely balanced recommendation.

"Although the application was refused contrary to officer recommendation it does not mean that the members have acted unreasonably in coming to a different conclusion. Overall, I am satisfied that the council has met its obligation to give proper consideration to the planning application."