Agenda item

First floor extensions on the north west elevation and south east elevations, together with a first floor link extension between the first floor elements to provide 5 additional care home bedrooms, together with reduction of the basement/lower ground floor (as compared to the original planning permission ref. 196/APP/2012/1776, as amended by 196/APP/2013/2958), including 6 smoke/vent shafts (Part Retrospective Application).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - The application was refused as per the officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was granted for 2013 and the development is in the process of being built. The current planning application seeks permission to add three first floor extensions to the previously approved development. The combined extensions would provide a total of five additional care home bedrooms. Officers recommended this application for refusal on visual and amenity grounds.

A petition had been submitted in objection of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         Initially the development was not a care home but a 31 flat residential building which had little impact on its surroundings.

·         Residents have been shocked by the scale, height, intrusive and dominating nature of these buildings.

·         The initial visualisations of the building have been misleading.

·         Residents bordering the development are being directly overlooked by large multiple windows. Properties based at the North and South of the development are being severely overlooked.

·         The traffic and parking report focuses on seven year old data from three homes all with excellent road and public transport links. Parking issues could arise from the proposed development, despite having closer public transport links.

·         High levels of noise outside of legally permitted times has caused residents stress and anxiety.

·         Infringements have been reported to the developers directly, the Council, the Local Ward Councillor, the Environmental Department and the Unsociable Behaviour Department.

The applicant's agent spoke in support of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution the agent spoke and made the following points:

·         The proposals comprise five bedrooms and a corridor at first floor level. The link will improve circulation in the care home by making the flow of movement more efficient and communication between the two halves of the home will be more established.

·         The current arrangement of the development will be an inconvenience to staff working in the home as they will find it difficult to provide quick assistance to residents.

·         The proposed increase in the number of bedrooms makes an efficient use of the site and provides more facilities within the home at more reasonable costs, whilst also creating more rooms for people in need of the service.

·         The planning officers' views in the report were subjective and both the applicant and agent disagreed with the view. The proposed developments were designed in a manner which fits in with the original design and would fit comfortably in their setting.

·         The designs met the commonly accepted standards for distances between windows.  The effects bought about the current proposal were marginal and not significant.

·         The highways report submitted was professional, objective and independent.

·         The original application compromised the building of the link between the homes, but after seeing the building constructed, it now makes common sense to include the link.

A statement from Councillor Duncan Flynn, Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, was submitted on behalf of the local residents in objection of the planning application. The statement was read out by the Chairman. Councillor Flynn made the following points:

·         Although the application already had planning permission, the current planning application presented an unacceptable increase inthe size of the development.

·         The development was surrounded by largely lowlevel residential accommodation in Larkswood Rise and Daymer Gardens. The proposed extensions would increase the scale of analready large development which dwarfed neighbouring properties.

·         If approved, the application would fail to harmonise with thesurrounding residential area and would dominate the skyline of thearea to the detriment of neighbouring properties.

Members accepted that this development was a much needed home for people and were not against the development in principle.  However in Member's the development was out of policy. Members noted that there was a current enforcement investigation that had not yet been resolved. Members expressed disappointment at the situation as it often occurred where officers worked hard with developers to encourage them to build in accordance with approved plans, although this was not always the case.  Members were concerned that the implementation of the proposed link would change the mass of the building and would join three buildings at first floor level.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

The application was refused as per the officer's recommendation.