Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to Legal Agreement.

Proposal: Full planning application for demolition of Lord Harris Court Centre care home (88 bedroom) and erection of a new 45 bedroom care home and 60 assisted living apartments (C2 use Class), together with associated car parking, landscaping and amenity space provision.

Applicant: Kevin Harris, Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 233 to 276.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Amended plans detailing revised boundary measures to include ecologically-friendly fencing suitable for small animals;

·           Amended paragraph 55.

Stuart Crickett, agent, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that a previous application had been refused due to concerns over the size and scope of the proposal. Stuart added that the current application had undergone comprehensive changes and positive reviews, which had reduced the bulk and height of the proposals whilst still delivering a top quality care home. Stuart stated that the current proposals amounted to no loss in resident amenity, and the development would have no adverse highways impact. Stuart added that Tree 35 (T35), a grand oak tree, would be preserved and incorporated into the new development. Stuart stated that the proposals would provide two state of the art facilities to care for the elderly and dementia patients.

Mike Larsen, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Mike was of the opinion that the new proposals were still of considerable bulk and scale, and cited that the previous application was roundly refused. Mike added that the current proposals had placed the structures further back in the site, making it denser than the previous proposal. Mike stated that the phases approach to the construction of the development could take a considerable amount of time. Mike added that the T33 and T34 lived in harmony with retained T35 and should also be protected rather than felled.

Paul Fishwick, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the proposed balconies overlooked residential properties and would reduce their privacy. Paul added that T33 and T34 provided screening and grew outside retained T35 and should also be retained. Paul was of the opinion that the proposed development would adversely impact the traffic on the already congested surrounding roads. Paul stated that there were parking concerns relating to the proposals, and that the smoking shelter adjacent to the residential properties needed to be moved elsewhere. Paul was of the opinion that the proposed development would case light pollution, and that there were substandard footways outside of the development linking to public transport routes.

Andrew Chugg, Case Officer, responded to a number of points raised by the speakers. He stated that the size of the proposals had been reduced and that the general relationship between the proposed structures and the residential properties had increased by between 1.5m-2m. Andrew added that the proposals would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Andrew clarified that the Landscape and Tree Officer had not objected to the felling of T33 and T34, and added that extra landscaping would be provided as part of the proposed development. Andrew stated that the balconies were not considered to have a significant impact of residential privacy. Andrew added that the loss of light and overbearing nature of the proposal were not considered unacceptable in planning terms.

Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that the traffic in the surrounding area was low on the morning of the site visit.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey was of the opinion that the proposed location of the smoking shelter would adversely affect the existing residents, and asked for it to be moved. The Committee concurred with this request, and Andrew Chugg confirmed it could be moved via condition.

Wayne Smith asked that the ecological fencing condition (as amended within the Members’ Update) be agreed in consultation with the local Ward Members.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried why T33 and T34 were required to be felled. In response, the Committee asked the agent to clarify. Stuart Cricket stated that it was his belief that the root protection area of T33 and T34 would encroach on the proposed development over their lifespan, and that their loss was justified by the preservation of T35 which would have a longer lifespan.

RESOLVED: That application 190233 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 186 to 192, variation to condition 2 as set out in the Members’ Update in conjunction with the Ward Members’, and additional condition regarding the relocation of the smoking shelter away from the existing residential properties.