Agenda item

Change of use of the existing ancillary outbuilding to 4 x 1-bed residential care units, to include alterations to elevation.

Deferred from North Committee 26/04/2012

Change of use of the existing ancillary outbuilding to 4 x 1-bed residential care units, to include alterations to elevation.

This application was deferred at the meeting of the 26th April 2012 for a site visit. Members visited the site on the 29th May 2012. The proposal involved the conversion of an existing outbuilding, previously used as a kitchen, laundry and storage facility in connection with the main use of the site as a care home, to provide an extension to the care home in the form of four further units, each comprised of a sleeping area, living area and en-suite facilities.

There were no extensions proposed to the existing built development on the site and the alterations to the fenestration details were considered in-keeping with the building to which they would relate. It was considered that the addition of four units was unlikely to have a significant additional traffic or parking impact on the surrounding area sufficient to warrant the refusal of planning permission on these grounds alone.

Due to the noise disturbance that could be experienced by the occupants from the adjoining railway and the additional activities that would be generated in association with the use the submission of a noise assessment report (which was absent from the previous refused application), was considered critical to both determination of the application and a positive recommendation. The Council's Environmental Health Officer had reviewed the contents of the noise report submitted with the current application and considered the conclusions contained therein to be acceptable.

The applicant had been able to satisfactorily demonstrate how the development will safeguard the amenities of both the future occupants of the development and of the nearby residential occupiers and thus the proposal would comply with policies OE1 and OE5 of the UDP (Saved Policies September 2007). On this basis the proposal was recommended for approval.

Petitioners had made representations to Committee on 26 April 2012 and a new petition had not been submitted. Therefore there was no right to address Committee.

Members stated that conditions on new occupiers had not been looked into at all. The sound proposals would only work when all the doors and windows were shut which was a concern. The proposed application was isolated. This proposal was the same as someone requesting an out-building rather than a care home.

It was noted that those living in the proposed building would need to come from outside their rooms to the main home for meals etc. In addition Members felt that the application did not meet the Council’s Accessibility Policy requirements. For example the application was not suitable for wheelchairs.

Members agreed there was further concern due to the proximity to railway lines; the building may shake and be noisy. Members felt that this was not suitable living conditions.

Members further commented that the size of the rooms was a concern and the accessibility from the out building to the main block was a large concern. The pathway minimum requirement was not big enough and it was not covered.

It was agreed that Members were not happy with the accessibility, vibration, amenity of occupants, remoteness, and went against Policy OE01 and General Policy BE19. Members further stated that they felt concerns regarding the noise impact were not looked into fully and they were not convinced the suggested sound control would work in this case.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the officer recommendation is overturned and the application be refused.