Councillor Matthews asked for clarification on the advice given by the locum lawyer at the previous meeting regarding a condition proposed by the Local Ward member in her opening remarks in respect of an application at Haygrove Farm. The locum lawyer advised Members that the condition would not be enforceable and did therefore not meet the government criteria.

In response to a further question from Councillor PJ Watts regarding condition 3 of the resolution in respect of the same application, the Locum Lawyer advised that the condition was necessary and met the requirements of the afore mentioned national guidance as well as national planning policy PPS24.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes. He also advised Members that he recommended that an additional two conditions be added to the recommendation to restrict hours of construction and to address slab levels.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Rees spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JLV Kenyon and MD Lloyd-Hayes, two of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• Hampton Grange was a care home for dementia sufferers
• Not aware of any parking issues surrounding the home
• Note the concerns regarding the loss of open space but there is open space at the back of the home overlooking the river.
• The proposal will give the residents the opportunity to look out over the river or at the impressive cedar tree.
• Local Members previously objected to apartments on the site due to the increase in traffic
• Natural England, the conservation manager, the ecology manager, and the traffic manager do not object to the application.
• The proposed development is in keeping with the existing building.
• The neighbouring dwellings are some distance away fro the application site.
• No complaints received from local residents regarding the home.
• Statistics prove that there will be an increase in dementia sufferers throughout the County.
• The Council has a duty of care in respect of the elderly within the County.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the cooking facilities would be located against the western elevation. He suggested that Members may consider it relevant to include a condition seeking details of the extraction equipment prior to development. He added that the proposed bin store would be covered; that there had been no objections from the Council’s Environmental Health Team; and that existing issues of noise should be addressed through the Environmental Protection Team and not through the planning process.

Members discussed the application and felt that the Council had a duty of care towards the elderly and the mentally infirm. They did however note the concerns of the local residents and felt that these concerns could be addressed through suitable conditions. They requested that additional conditions be incorporated into the resolution to address landscaping; the provision of a noise attenuation scheme for the bin store; and additional secure cycle storage.

Members noted their disappointment at the loss of open space through the development but felt that there was good reason in this case. They also noted that there was still substantial open space overlooking the river that residents could use.

The Locum Lawyer advised Members that the application fell within the conservation area. He added that Members should pay special attention to the effect the application would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

In response to a question the Principal Planning Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.