Agenda item

The planning application was for the change of use of an original building from office building to Elderly Care Home plus side and rear extensions to provide, overall, a 62 bedroom Elderly Care Home for the over 65’s at 270 Eastfield Road, Eastfield.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of Development

·         Recent Site History

·         Design

·         Amenity for future residents

·         Access and Parking

·         Impact on Neighbours

·         Sustainability

·         Drainage

·         Impact on Locally Listed Building

·         Landscape and Ecology

·         Section 106

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The existing modern extensions to the building were proposed to be removed and access to the rear maintained.

·         A previous scheme for the site was refused permission, in part, because of its proximity to nearby residential properties. The current scheme before Committee allowed for a greater separation distance from neighbouring properties.

·         The design was in keeping with the host property.

·         The windows on the upper floors were angled and recessed to avoid overlooking.

·         The previous reasons for refusing development on this site had all been addressed within this revised scheme.

·         A condition in order to restrict the use of the site to residential accommodation and care for adults in need of full-time care was included in the recommendation.

Councillor Shearman and Councillor Peach, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Residents welcomed the improvements made from the previous scheme submitted.

·         The fact that it was no longer proposed to house student accommodation and that the original building and trees were to be protected was welcomed.

·         The mass of the proposal was still too large.

·         Parking was not assured and appeared to be dependent of staff travelling via mini-bus. This was not considered to be good enough.

·         There was still a considerable amount of overlook on neighbouring properties.

·         It was requested that the extra condition restricting use be altered to ‘elderly care home’ as per the application.

·         Traffic is a concerning issue. The road was very busy and College Park Road was very narrow.

·         It was requested that all trees be protected.

John Grimsey, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal was too big for the site.

·         Residents were happy that the site would be used for elderly care and that the original building was to be retained.

·         Previous reasons for refusal regarding design and mass of the buildings were still relevant.

·         The proposal sill presented a lack of privacy.

·         The parking difficulties that would result from the development would add to those already existing. The footprint of the development should be decreased and parking provision increased.

·         It was questioned whether conditions relating to enforcement, lighting and restriction of use were robust enough to implement.

The Senior Engineer (Development) explained that parking provision for elderly care homes varied for each development and that the Council’s policy on parking provision provided a maximum standard for parking, not minimum.

The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that the conditions relating to enforcement and lighting were considered sufficiently robust. Condition 16 may be strengthened by changing the wording to ‘adults over 65’.

The Committee discussed the parking provision provided with the application, with several Members expression concern as to whether it would be sufficient. It was highlighted that the majority of care home residents would not themselves be driving, so parking would be used primarily by staff and visitors.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, with an amendment to condition 16 to read ‘elderly persons’. The motion was carried nine voting in favour and one voting against.

(nine voted in favour, one voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the reports and the amendment of condition 16 to read ‘elderly persons’.

Reasons for the decision

·         The site was in a residential area and was suitable for a residential use.

·         The development could be carried out without harm to the existing locally listed building.

·         The development would allow for the retention of protected trees.

·         Adequate access and parking could be provided.

·         The development would not lead to any unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours.