Erection of new residential care home with associated offices and facilities.

Erection of new residential care home with associated offices and facilities.

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Amended plans had been received identifying the widening of Holywell Gutter Lane from the junction with the B4224, the provision of two pedestrian accesses from Holywell Gutter Lane to the adjacent public open space and provision of a further passing place opposite the proposed site entrance.  The Traffic Manager had also confirmed that the improvements to Holywell Gutter Lane satisfied the Section 106 requirements in this instance.

§               A further plan had been provided identifying the retention of additional mature trees within the site and along the site frontage.

 

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The amended plans addressed the Traffic Manager’s comments and would facilitate safer access and exit and general passage of vehicles along Holywell Gutter Lane.  In addition, the retention of further mature trees was welcomed and would assist in integrating the development into the site and surroundings.

§               It was considered that all outstanding issues had now been addressed and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

§               Typographical errors in the report were corrected.

§               An informative note was recommended in respect of the need for the applicants to ensure that they had lawful authority to drive vehicles over the public bridleway.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms. Ward spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, made a number of comments, including:

§               Attention was drawn to paragraph 1.3 of the report, that ‘Martha Trust is a non profit making charity that provides lifelong and day care respite for children and young adults with profound and multiple disabilities’, and the Chairman commented on a visit to the existing facility with a planning officer some years before.

§               The facility would help to improve the quality of life for those being cared for and should be welcomed as a valuable resource in the county.

§               The case officer was congratulated for producing a report which had fully assessed the material considerations, including the conflict with Policy CF7, and the recommendation of approval was supported.

 

Councillor NL Vaughan commented on the excellent work of the Trust but queried the impact of the development on the surrounding countryside.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the application was supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and it was considered that, even with the loss of some existing trees, the development would not be prominent within the immediate or wider landscape; he added that a large number of the trees to be removed were Category C (minor value) and new tree planting would also be undertaken. 

 

Councillor Vaughan also queried the likely effectiveness of the Travel Plan requirements.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Plan would not be accepted unless it contained sufficient details and suitable penalties if targets were not achieved.  In response to a further question, the Principal Planning Officer said that financial penalties for non-compliance with the Travel Plan might not be entirely appropriate in this instance but other measures would be required.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox noted that various elements of the application had to be considered, including the landscape impact, the departure from Policy CF7, the high quality design of the development, the need for the facility, and the creation of 60 new full time jobs.  Whilst noting concerns about the impact on residential amenity, Councillor Wilcox felt that the application was acceptable on balance and supported the recommendation of approval.  He asked for clarification about the comment in the report that ‘adequate parking will be provided within the site’ but noted the wider benefits associated with the alterations and improvements to Holywell Gutter Lane.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards commented on the valuable work of the Trust, the sustainable credentials and design of the development, and the support from Hampton Bishop Parish Council.  Given the comments of the speaker and the open countryside location of the site, Councillor Edwards said that improvements to the lane should not result in an overly urbanised appearance.  The Principal Planning Officer said that officers recognised the need to maintain the character of the lane and, for this reason, no footpath or street lighting was recommended; although new pedestrian links to the open space to the west from Holywell Gutter Lane would be required.  The Assistant Solicitor (Corporate) said that the status of the lane as a bridleway would have implications for the type of surface treatment that could be used. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the sustainability measures and advised that the proposed development was close to achieving the highest possible rating under the ‘BREEAM’ assessment system.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell supported the application and commented on the need for objectivity, the high standard of architecture proposed, visual impact considerations, and construction sustainability.

 

Councillor PA Andrews commented on the quality of the design approach and said that, given the 24 hour care requirements, the Travel Plan needed to be appropriate for the type of use proposed.

 

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer explained the arrangements for staff and visitor parking and for vehicular manoeuvring; there was provision for mini-buses but it was not envisaged that large buses would need to be parked at the site.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented that some staff at the existing facility already used sustainable modes of transport and suggested that this could be further encouraged through parking charges during the day.

 

Councillor AM Toon noted the architectural merits of the scheme but expressed reservations about the potential socio-economic impact of the use.  In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the level of highway works proposed in the scheme were greater than could be achieved through a Section 106 Agreement and no other contributions were required.

 

Councillor WU Attfield commented that there were positive economic benefits from the creation of new full time jobs that the development would generate.  Councillor Attfield noted that the development would have an impact on residential amenity and on the landscape but the wider benefits had to be taken into consideration.

 

Councillor Vaughan felt that the proposal should be amended to include specific reference to the penalties to be applied in the event of non-compliance with the targets in the Travel Plan.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the standard condition would require targets relating to particular modes of transport and appropriate penalties if the targets were not met.  The Central Team Leader commented on the robust approach being taken in relation to Travel Plans and advised that the targets would be set as a result of discussions with transportation and sustainability officers.

 

The Chairman noted the need to consider the broader community aspects of the scheme.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

 

2.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

3.         G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

 

4.         G03 Retention of existing trees/hedgerows

 

5.         G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

 

6.         H03 Visibility splays

 

7.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

8.         H17 Junction improvement/off site works

 

9.         H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

10.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

11.       H30 Travel plans

 

12.       I09 Sound insulation of plant and machinery

 

13.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

14.       I20 Scheme of surface water drainage

 

15.       I33 External lighting

 

16.       I41 Scheme of refuse storage (commercial)

 

17.       I55 Site Waste Management

 

18.       I56 Sustainable Construction Condition

 

19.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

20.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

21.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

 

22.       K4 Nature Conservation - Implementation

 

Informatives:

 

1.         N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

 

2.         N19 Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

 

3.         The applicant’s attention is drawn to the need to secure the landowners permission to use the bridleway by vehicular traffic.