Construction of one single storey and two two-storey extensions to existing residential care home.

Construction of two single storey and one two-storey extensions to existing residential care home.

The Southern Team Leader reported that the agent had written a further letter on the issue of over-development. This identified that Herefordshire Council had no adopted standards on external amenity space provision for residents of care homes. The agent was also aware of a study into the issue, which had been conducted by a planning consultant pursuant to a recent planning appeal lodged by the applicant elsewhere in the country. This had revealed that a number of local authorities had adopted minimum standards for the provision of external amenity space, ranging from 5 sq.m (Newham) to 17 sq.m (Mansfield District Council). 

The useable amenity space at West Bank following the extension would equate to 1,520 sq.m, which when divided by the 42 residents would result in a level of provision equating to 36 sq.m per resident. This was more than double the highest adopted requirement by any authority that the applicant’s planning consultant had been able to identify. The agent considered this to demonstrate that the provision of external amenity space would remain appropriate.

The Southern Team Leader added that the description of the development in the Agenda was incorrect and should read “CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE STOREY AND ONE TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS…”

Councillor AE Gray, the Local Ward Member, thanked Officers for arranging a comprehensive site inspection. She had a number of concerns regarding the application and she was of the opinion that granting planning permission on the site would harm the character of the area. She advised the Sub-Committee that West Bank was a care home and not a nursing home and that the application would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. She also voiced her concerns in respect of noise and light emanating from the premises and causing a disturbance to the neighbouring residents as well as foul water issues on the site.

Members discussed the application and had concerns regarding the continued expansion of the site. They felt that the footprint of the building was already too large and that granting the application would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring dwellings. They noted that the application site fell within a residential area and was also within an area of outstanding natural beauty.

In response to a number of points made by Members, the Southern Team Leader advised that the site benefitted from mains drainage and that Welsh Water had not objected to the application and the drainage issues discussed could be addressed through suitable conditions if necessary. He added that car parking provisions had been increased and were deemed acceptable by the Highways Engineer together with the means of access. In response to a question from Councillor Jarvis it was acknowledged that the site plan included in the agenda pack was out of date but was the most recent OS plan that was available. He advised that it was provided solely as a location plan and was not necessarily an accurate plan of the site. This was something that was clarified by the detailed presentation.

In response to a question from Councillor JA Hyde, the Southern Team Leader added that the Commission for Social Care Inspection would be able to comment on the application but would have to limit their comments to their area of responsibility.

Councillor RH Smith moved that the application be refused contrary to the Officers recommendation on grounds of visual impact, overbearing, and the character and appearance of the application in a residential area. Members discussed the refusal motion and felt that the application was contrary to policies DR1, DR2, and CF7 of Herefordshire Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

RESOLVED

That:

(i) The Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

The application is contrary to Policies DR1, DR2, and CF7 of the Unitary Development Plan due to overbearing, visual impact and the impact on the character and appearance of the residential area.

(ii) If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:   Following the vote on this application, the Southern Team Leader advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]