Proposed demolition of existing Church. Erection of 52 Bed care facility on three floors with ancillary areas and parking.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Phelps and Mr Wood, local residents, spoke in objection to the application Mr Patient, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the proposed care home was in a residential area and adjacent to two other care homes. It was recognised that the community space contained at the church was the only such facility in the electoral division of College and was a sad loss to local residents. There was a limited number of community buildings within the north of the city. However, it was also recognised that there was a need for high quality care facilities locally. Therefore a balance had to be struck between the need for care facilities and the potential loss of community facilities. It was noted that the rear of the site declined towards Admiral Close and the proposed building represented a significant change to the character of the site. The design represented a mix of materials, ridge heights and outlooks. In the absence of a predominant local vernacular the design was not considered out of keeping and the building would be unobtrusive when viewed from Venns lane. However, the building would overlook residential properties within Admiral Close and whilst it was recognised the windows had been removed to the rear of the building to mitigate overlooking and loss of privacy it was queried whether this was sufficient to address concerns regarding residential amenity. Further, there were concerns regarding the impact of lighting from the site on neighbouring properties, the substantial nature of the building proposed and the impact on the landscape and the view of the area from the city.

In accordance with the council's constitution, the adjacent ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the church represented a valuable community asset and an example of important local heritage. It was important to act responsibly in respect of the existing church and any decision to demolish was felt to be premature. A community consultation conducted by the diocese was raised in which the overwhelming majority of local residents had asked for the church to remain in use. A requirement in the NPPF that the loss of a community facility must be justified was undermined by the overwhelming support for the retention of the church within the local community. There was demand for facilities and space for local groups from the local community. A Bill, currently passing through parliament, was raised which was of relevance to the current decision to be considered by the committee; the bill concerned the protection of community facilities. The bat survey attached to the application was felt to be invalid as it had been undertaken at a time when bats were hibernating. Photographic evidence had been submitted by local residents which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65