Proposed medical centre to include doctors’ surgery, dental facilities and dispensary, proposed vehicle access, treatment plant and landscaping.

Proposed medical centre to include doctors’ surgery, dental facilities and dispensary, proposed vehicle access, treatment plant and landscaping.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Dudhill, a neighbouring resident had registered to speak but was unwell on the day of the meeting. The Development Control Manager read out a written statement on behalf of Mr Dudhill.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Dr King, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

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

·         The existing surgery was too small and caused problems for neighbouring residents due to parking issues on the site.

·         The alternative sites outlined in the reports were not suitable, four had been developed, one was identified as the football ground, one was the recreation ground and the others fell within the flood plain.

·         The only alternative site where development would be possible was the market site. The owners of the site had made it clear that they were not willing to relocate and sell the land.

·         The proposed site was not ideal but was the best possible option available.

·         On balance the necessity of the new surgery outweighed the concerns.

·         The access to the site would need to be improved if planning permission was granted on the site.

• No protected species would be affected through the granting of planning permission on the site.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RJ Phillips, the adjoining ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application was submitted following eight years of research.

·         16 possible sites had been investigated at a cost of approximately £200,000.

·         The proposed site was not perfect but was the best possible solution.

·         Unitary Development Plan policies CF5 and S11 allowed for the site to be developed for community usage.

·         The applicant was investigating the possibility of purchasing additional adjoining land to allow for an increased car parking capacity.

·         A pedestrian crossing would need to be a condition of any approval.

·         Members should delegate approval subject to conditions to address visibility, signage, pedestrian crossing, car parking, and any other issues deemed necessary by Officers.

• The available PCT funding may have been lost if the application was not approved.

The Committee noted that the current medical centre located at the Meads, Victoria Road, Kington and supported by two satellite surgeries in Pembridge and Eardisley had 8500 registered patients from a 600 square mile area. They appreciated the concerns expressed in respect of the limitations of the current site and agreed that it was insufficient for the needs of a modern surgery.

The lack of a current bus service to the site was discussed but members noted that the majority of patients would drive or walk to the surgery. Members felt that patients should be encouraged to walk to the surgery in order to promote a healthy lifestyle. It was also noted that the town had a local bus operator who may offer a regular service if permission was granted.

Members had concerns in respect of the 16 alternative sites referred to in the report. It was noted that a number of the sites had been developed and others were located within the flood plain. Members felt that the proposed site, although being outside of the town centre, was the most suitable site for development.

Members felt that the 600 letters of support received outlined the level of support for the application within the local community. They also noted that central Government and the Primary Care Trust demanded modern, purpose built surgeries and that the funding for the proposed surgery was available at present. There were concerns as to whether the funding would be available for a future application.

Members discussed the application thoroughly and on balance were minded to support the application in accordance with policies S11 and CF5 of the Unitary Development Plan. Members noted the concerns in respect of access, landscaping, and car parking but felt that these could be addressed through conditions agreed in consultation with the Chairman, the local ward member and the neighbouring ward member.

The Development Control Manager advised members that although the Unitary Development Plan policies supported the provision of community facilities, in the Officer’s opinion the application did not meet the criteria as set out in the report. He advised members that he remained unsatisfied that all alternative sites had been investigated and drew their attention to concerns raised by the Council’s Landscape Manager and Ecologist. He also advised members that there were serious concerns regarding the access and car parking provisions.

Councillors James and Phillips were given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. They reiterated the issues raised in their opening statements and also made a number of addition points, including:

• The current site was in a residential area located 600 metres away from the nearest bus stop.
• Less than 1% of patients accessed the current surgery on foot.
• All of the concerns in respect of the site could be addressed through suitable conditions.
• There were no suitable alternative sites within the area.

RESOLVED

That the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation subject to any conditions considered necessary by Officers in consultation with the Chairman, the local ward member, and the neighbouring ward member.