Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a new part two storey and part three storey care home building with associated communal spaces, back of house, and service areas, substation, parking, and landscaping following demolition of the existing care home and associated ancillary buildings and a change of use of land at the eastern end of the site

Applicant: Aedifica UK Limited

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 285 to 340.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda included:

·         Amendment to condition 4 (omission of references to species), and creation of new informative 12 therein;

·         Amendment to condition 5 (omission of references to contract gardeners), and inclusion of those omissions within informative 12;

·         Amendment to condition 28 to only require north facing balustrade elevations to be obscure glazed.

Nicola Jordan, resident, spoke in objection to the application. In her absence, a statement was read out by the Vice Chair. Nicola felt that the proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area, whilst noise and pollution levels during construction would be detrimental for residents and local schools, including people working from home and pupils trying to learn at local schools. Nicola added that traffic and parking were already considerable issues in the vicinity of local schools, whilst pollution levels would increase from the increased traffic associated with this development. Nicola raised concerns of increased noise and odours from the development if it was expanded, whilst the development would also place additional pressures on the already overloaded GP surgeries and pharmacies in the local area. Nicola was of the opinion that there was not a need for any more care home placements locally, and asked that the application be refused.

Tim Spencer, agent, spoke in support of the application. Tim stated that the applicant focussed on delivery and operation of modern care homes, where there was an unprecedented need for care home provision nationally. Tim added that at least five additional care homes would be required to meet the existing needs of the Borough, and noted that the current build was not fit for purpose. Tim stated that the application would provide jobs for local people, contribute to the Borough’s housing numbers, and free up much needed family homes. Tim stated that the applicant had engaged with officers through the pre-application stage, leading to the reduction of massing and improvements in the quality of the design, which the Parish Council were now content with. Many of the existing trees were to be retained on the site, and supplementary planting would provide additional benefits to residents and provide additional screening. Tim stated that neighbouring amenity had been carefully considered, and officers had noted the sustainable location whilst parking was proposed to be increased from 13 spaces to 27 spaces. A construction management plan would be adhered to, and disruption during the construction phase would be kept to a minimum. Tim asked that the application be approved.

Wayne Smith queried whether the application site was situated within the green belt, and sought clarity as to whether the application would add to the Borough’s housing numbers. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that the application site was not contained within the green belt, and confirmed that care home numbers did not count towards housing targets where the rooms were not self-contained. Wayne Smith stated that disruption should be mitigated via the construction management plan, which needed to be strictly enforced.

Stephen Conway queried whether the proposed structure would be overbearing on the neighbouring ‘Beechwood’ property. Simon Taylor stated that the retention of the hedge and the set back of the wing was not that dissimilar to the existing relationship. The existing balcony facing Beechwood was about the same height as the proposed window facing Beechwood, whereby the hedge currently screened the view.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved subject to the officer recommendation. This was seconded by David Cornish.

RESOLVED That application number 222456 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 313 to 324, amendments to conditions 4, 5, 28 and insertion of new informative 12 as set out within the supplementary planning agenda, and subject to legal agreement.