Agenda item

Demolition of 30-32 Chester Road and development of Residential Care Home, alterations to access and associated landscaping.  Deferred from North Planning Committee on 4^th October 2011

Recommendation : Would have been approved had an appeal against non-determination not been received.

Officer’s introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes as set out in the addendum.

Officers highlighted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 4^th October 2011 and had also been the subject of a site visit by the Committee.

Officers explained that a previous scheme for a 24 bedroom care home on the application site was refused by the Council in 2010, and a subsequent appeal was also dismissed earlier this year.

The Inspector found that that scheme would have resulted in a development that would fail to harmonise with the area and would create a cramped street scene, thereby harming the character and appearance of Chester Road and the Area of Special Local Character. The Inspector did however find that there would be no harm to highway safety, that the Council's renewable energy requirements could reasonably be controlled by condition, that access for the disabled was satisfactory, and that a healthcare contribution was appropriate.

The Inspector also found that the relationship with the adjoining neighbours in terms of the impact on their amenities would be acceptable. Therefore the Committee were informed that the only reason for refusal of the Council that he supported was in respect of the impact on the character of the area.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a ward Councillor spoke in objection to the item.

The ward councillor made the following points:

• The flanks of the proposed building were bulkier in depth than the adjoining property at No 28 and exceeded the present building, affecting the privacy of residents in Roy Road and this would be exacerbated by the removal of trees.
• The proposed care home would bring total occupancy to 58 people plus staff, causing an increase in road traffic with little off-road traffic catered for.
• The traffic survey commissioned by the applicants had been held at strange times which did not coincide with the time at which local roads would be busiest.
• The traffic survey had only been conducted on the main roads and had ignored the likely impacts (of displaced parking) on side roads.
• A large commercial enterprise in a wholly residential area would not be sympathetic to the area

In discussing the application, officer’s confirmed that no parking survey had been conducted on a Sunday. Officer’s reported that the Council’s own parking survey had yielded the following results:

• Chester Road : 31 parked, 46 vacant, and 40% occupied
• Kemps Drive: 3 parked, 5 vacant, and 38% occupied
• Wychwood Way: 16 parked, 9 vacant, and 64% occupied

And this survey re-inforced the information provided by the applicants that indicated the parking situation in the area was not so severe that the application could be refused.

With reference to access and temporary parking for emergency vehicles it was noted that there was parking available to the front of the site and  emergency service could park in the access point of the proposed development should this need arise.

The recommendation: the application would have been approved had an appeal not been received was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed with 6 votes in favour and 1 against.

Resolved –

The application would have been approved had an appeal not been received.