Erection of a 60 bed (maximum) care home for the elderly.

Erection of a 60 bed (maximum) care home for the elderly.

The Senior 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 Sneddon, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AE Gray, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including;

• Agreed with the points raised by the applicant in respect of circular 03-2005
• The application had not been discussed with the regulatory body
• The local member felt that there must be evidence that the care commissioner had been consulted prior to any application being granted.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PGH Cutter, the other local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including;

• Advised Members of the layout of the site and the location of the neighbouring industrial units.
• The nearest shop was approximately 1 mile away from the proposed development.
• Neither the Traffic Manager nor the Economic Development Manager were in favour of the application.
• The applicant had permission for 3 retail units on the site, these were more in keeping with the area than a residential use.
• The application was contrary to policy CF7 as the application was not in an existing residential area.

Members felt that the elderly deserved the right to live out their latter years in dignity and peace and that the proposed application would not enable this due to its location on an industrial estate. They felt that it was therefore contrary to Policy CF7 of the Unitary Development Plan and was not in keeping with local or national care policies.

It was noted that jobs would be created by granting the application but Members felt that this would not alleviate the concerns raised in respect of the suitability of the site.

It was noted that the Committee had recently granted permission for a care home on Faraday Road on industrial land and some Members questioned how this proposal differed.

The Head of Development Management advised Members that the application needed to be determined on land use considerations only. He added that the need, or lack of need, for the care home was not a material planning consideration.

The Committee noted the letter from Dr Rogers, detailed in the updates sheet, regarding his concerns about care provision for the elderly in Ross.

The Committee noted that the Unitary Development Plan stated at 13.5.3, that, ‘residential care homes should be located within areas that are suitable for other forms of residential accommodation and ideally be situated close to local services and public transport routes.’

In summing up the Committee felt that the application should be refused as there was an inappropriate relationship between employment land and the care home; the application was contrary to Policy CF7 of the Unitary Development Plan; and the setting and surroundings were not appropriate for a care home development.

As the Committee were minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation, the Head of Development Management and the Monitoring Officer’s representative discussed the reasons for refusal outlined by the Committee and in accordance with paragraph 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution they felt that major policy issues were not at stake and that the decision would be defendable if challenged, therefore the motion was put to the vote.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused on the following grounds:

• There is an inappropriate relationship between employment land and the care home

• The application is contrary to Policy CF7 of the Unitary Development Plan

• The setting and surroundings are not appropriate for a care home development