New building for the care of the elderly mentally infirm (Dementia Unit) providing accommodation for 30 residents.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation subject to a Section 106 agreement to tie the proposed building to the existing Pencombe Hall.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Mitchell, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Brown, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor A Seldon, one of the local ward members, had advised the Chairman that he could not be present at the meeting but had provided the Democratic Services Officer with a written statement which was read out to the Committee.[Amended at Planning Committee 29 August 2012]

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JG Lester, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The proposal was not acceptable due to the scale and mass of the development and the proposed location.

·         The development would result in a dominant and discordant feature in an isolated and unsustainable location.

·         The application was not finely balanced, as suggested in the officer’s report, and it should be refused contrary to the recommendation.

·         Due to the isolated rural location and infrequent bus service the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy CF7.

·         A previous application on the site was refused by Committee in 2007 due to the fact that the site was unsustainable.

·         The application was found to be contrary to Policies S1, S2 and DR7 at that time, the policies all remain and a refusal should be based on those same policies.

·         It could not be guaranteed that either beds or jobs associated with the proposal would go to local people.

·         An application was approved for 40 beds in 2007, which had never been implemented, and surely this proved that there was not a need for such a large number of additional beds in the County.

·         A condition had been recommended limiting the use of the beds to elderly mentally infirm patients, would this be enforceable.

·         The application could not be viewed as an extension as it was a separate self-contained unit which would raise doubts over the future of Pencombe Hall.

·         The proposed development was oversized, overbearing and dominant and did not compliment Pencombe Hall as the proposed finish was completely different to the existing building.

·         The concerns raised by the residents of the neighbouring coach house in respect of light pollution and overlooking should be considered.

·         Landscaping on the site should enhance the proposed development and not try to hide it; if a development has to be hidden is it really acceptable. 

In response to a question from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the previous application on the site, although for outline permission only, was in a similar location to the current proposal but it was larger.

Members discussed the application with a number of the Committee in general agreement with the local ward member. They felt that the proposed development was out of keeping with the existing Pencombe Hall due to its scale, mass and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39