Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillors L A Bentley, B Dave, Dr T K Khong, Mrs H E Loydall and R E R Morris.

Members are reminded that any declaration of interest should be made having regard to the Members’ Code of Conduct. In particular, Members must make clear the nature of the interest and whether it is 'pecuniary' or ‘non-pecuniary'.

None.

To read, confirm and sign the minutes of the previous meeting in accordance with Rule 17 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

By affirmation of the meeting, it was

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the previous Committee held on 22 November 2018 be taken as read, confirmed and signed.

To receive any Petitions and, or, Deputations in accordance with Rule 24 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

None.

In accordance with Rule 14.1 of Part 4 of the Constitution, a motion needs to be proposed and seconded before the Committee can debate a planning application. This is an administrative process designed to assist the Chair to manage the meeting effectively and efficiently. This is not an indication of how the proposer and seconder intend to cast their votes at the conclusion of the debate. Members can only make a decision once they have considered the content of the debate and all of the information in front of them.

Mr R Aston spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant. A copy of the agent’s representations is filed together with this minute at Appendix 1.

The Committee gave consideration to the report (as set out at pages 1 - 12 of the agenda) which asked it to determine a planning application for a change of use from a dwelling-house to a residential care home, including two-storey rear and single-storey extensions and alterations together with new vehicular access.

The Committee also gave consideration to an e-mail from Councillor Mrs H E Loydall sent 13 December 2018 in relation to the application. A copy of this e-mail is filed together with this minute at Appendix 2.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members accepted that, upon the advice of Officers, there were insubstantial material planning grounds upon which a refusal of permission could be framed or any prospective appeal could be successfully defended. This was because the principle of the change of use was, on balance, considered acceptable given the application site’s proximity to the new direction for growth site and that the proposed use would address a specialist care need as identified in the HEDNA forming part of the Council’s emerging Local Plan. In such circumstances, the Adopted Core Strategy was not to fetter Members’ discretion.

The Committee was also advised that, in view of the amended plans, the proposed development could no longer be considered to harm the character and appearance of the existing property or that of the surroundings nor the amenity of neighbouring residential properties or the safe and efficient use of the highway. It was reiterated that in relation to this application, the Highways Authority were satisfied that a safe and suitable access could be provided, irrespective of past determinations made on access arrangements at Newton Lane as refused in previous applications/appeals.

Notwithstanding the above, a number of Members expressed some reluctance to support the grant of planning permission due to the following items of concern:

1.     The property was not easily accessible to or conveniently located in relation to public transport, shops and other community facilities;

2.     There were no pre-existing access arrangements via Newton Lane upon which previous applications and appeals had been refused;

3.     Increased vehicular movements, highway and pedestrian safety and inadequate on-site parking provision to meet the requirements of a care home; and

4.     The visual impact resulting from the scale and bulk of the proposed extensions on the existing street scene and the character of the local area and green wedge.

To mitigate concerns as raised by Members, it was agreed that condition 5 be amended to restrict access to or from the site both on foot and by vehicle and, by way of condition added, that general permitted development rights be removed.

It was moved by Councillor G A Boulter, seconded by Councillor J Kaufman and

DEFEATED THAT:

The application be refused planning permission.

Votes For                  3

Votes Against          4

Abstentions             0

It was moved by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43a