Agenda item

Erection of a 45 Bed Care Home (Use Class C2) with associated landscaping and parking.

Recommendation: That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Erection of a 45 Bed Care Home (Use Class C2) with associated landscaping and parking.

Officers introduced the report andoutlined the changes made as per the addendum.

Officers confirmed the location of the Council owned lay-by for additional parking, which was located on High Meadow Close. Officers also confirmed the number of beds in the previous car home had been 31.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Michael Barrett spoke on behalf of the petitioners and it was noted that Members had received a copy of his speech prior to the start of the meeting:

• A 45 bed care home was substantially larger in bulk and mass than the former building on the site. Although the Council’s planning officer agreed with the developer, that a series of ‘irregular blocks’ diluted the bulk of the building, those that signed the petition strongly disagreed with this and felt the proposed development was too large.
• The building was of significant size and scale seeking to utilise the entire plot to the detriment of outside amenity space and to the neighbouring properties. The proposal hinged on the fact that the developers had reduced the number of beds from 50 to 45. Whilst petitioners agreed this was a step in the right direction they felt developers should be considering a smaller scale commercial operation of fewer bedrooms given how small the site and location was.
• Petitioners believed there was a lack of outdoor amenity space due to the scale of the build.They were concerned that the needs of the care home residents had not been adequately considered due to an over reliance in them being infirm and not being encouraged to venture outdoors. Given the size and scale of the building compared to the plot size, which was an awkward shape, and that it was surrounded by residential rather than commercial properties, the small current outdoor amenity provision exaggerated the scale of the building further and failed to support the built form in the context of the site.
• The petitioner spoke about lack of parking and the concern over emergency access.It was not a sustainable located site. The Council agreed with a 1A rating.  A key reason stated by the Council for the closure of Frank Welch Court was due to a lack of public transport. The petitioner stated that it could not be denied that staff, visitors and services to the site would have had no option but to drive.
• Petitioners remained extremely nervous about the validity of the transport surveys that had been completed since the initial proposal. The overwhelming opinion of petitioners was that the care homes audited for parking had better public transport access than the High Meadow site.
• Daymer Gardens was a relatively narrow road. It was imperative that passage for residents and emergency vehicles was ensured and that overflow parking from the care home was avoided.
• Increased volume of traffic and overflow parking could compromise the road safety.  The entry and exit from Daymer Gardens to Caitlin’s lane was already very dangerous due to the impact of people parking opposite the junction which forced drivers to proceed to turn into Daymer Gardens on the wrong side of the road.  An increase in parked cars in Daymer Gardens would further exasperate the safety issue.
• Petitioners were therefore keen for conditions to be imposed which protected against parking impact.
• The Planning Officer’s report pointed to the potential for parking within High Meadow, the Council owned lay-by, to be made available for overflow use. Petitioners urged the Council to allow the home to use this but safeguard against irresponsible unsafe parking and also asked the Council to consider a further payment from the home for the maintenance of the area.
• The petitioner spoke about the travel plan which they felt was merely a document of intention that did not live and breathe.  Members of staff would be encouraged, but not forced, to reconsider travel to work. Should the proposed development be approved, petitioners asked that the Council applied conditions insisting upon staggered shift patterns to attempt to avoid overflow parking.
• The Care Home would have no control over how many visitors came to the site or when they visited unless restricted and staggered visiting hours were applied. Petitioners asked that in the event that this proposal was approved, that a more rigid and ‘policable’ condition was applied beyond that which a travel plan offered.
• A number of petitioners had asked the lead petitioner to add that the process had been an unpleasant one due to the tactics the developers had chosen to adopt. This started with a poorly run neighbourhood consultation and led to residents who raised objections to the Council being contacted directly by the developer’s representative requesting individual meetings. These were under the guise of being neighbourly when in fact the outcome had been a number of residents feeling under extreme pressure to change their objections and being contacted repeatedly by the developer’s representative to do so.
• The petitioners urged Councillors to consider the developer’s proposal carefully. There had been a considerable amount of ‘spin’, selectiveness and in the view of residents with much history and local knowledge of the site, a fair degree of misrepresentation and inaccuracy as the developers’ seeked to get the proposal passed at all costs.
• The Care Home proposal was for the vulnerable in the community requiring care and welfare, however the care and welfare of the whole community, which includes residents like the petitioners, should form a key part of the decision making.

Mr Graham Gardner, agent, spoke on behalf of the application submitted: 

·        It was noted that the Planning and Urban design officer had accepted the design.

·        The developers had been working a year with the Council and residents to get the application right.

·        Developers had used DWA which was a nationally recognised care home architect for the development.

·        6 NHS doctors had been consulted and would be working with the care home. This showed that the applicants had a level of quality of care towards the people that would be staying at the care home.

·        The proposed building had been carefully designed so not to impact on adjoining properties.

·        The windows on the first floor would be located and angled so they did not impact or overlook adjoining properties.

·        The foot print and proposed building overall was not to large for the site.

·        The outside amenity space was more than adequate. It was almost 50% of the site and this was almost double the Council guidelines requirement.

·        The rooms in the proposed application were larger than guidelines, and there were large lounge spaces for residents too.

·        The application included a gym and other leisure facilities.  

·        Efforts had been directed at the elderly and residents, to ensure their health and wellbeing.

·        It was noted that the site was not of ecological value.

·        There was photo evidence which showed the site clearance was far more modest than suggested.

·        The proposal had ample on-site parking, 15 spaces were being provided although guidelines suggested that 10 spaces was adequate.

·        Evidence had been collated and agreed with the developer’s views on parking and traffic management. The application would not have a huge impact on traffic flow in the area.

·        Developers had accepted that public transport was limited but it was not a zero level. The closest bus stop was an 8 minute walk from the site.

Members commented on the good quality design of the application and felt that it was not overdevelopment of the site. Some Members felt that concerns had been met and the old care home would be replaced by a much improved care home.

Some Members felt the area would get congested during certain periods and the parking allocated was not sufficient for visitors. It was noted by the Highways Officer that surveys suggested that there would be approximately 3 additional cars on the road per hour as a result of the application being developed. It was further noted that this application provided more parking than similar applications which had been approved in the Borough.

Emergency access was discussed and it was noted that the developer had provided plans on emergency access and there was a dedicated ambulance lay-by on the site. Members clarified that CCTV would be secure by design.

Members also discussed the large site in a residential area and whether this was suitable. Members discussed the possibility of a site visit and whether this would be beneficial before reaching a decision on the application.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to vote was agreed by a majority. 4 Members voted in favour and 3 Members, Councillors’ Graham, Morgan and Payne voted against.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.