Erection of 90 bed care home for the elderly.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor BA Durkin, the Vice-Chairman was in the Chair for the following item as the Chairman had declared a prejudicial interest.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Councillor PGH Cutter, the Chairman acting as Local Ward Member, and Mr Sneddon, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. Councillor PGH Cutter left the Council Chamber and took no further part in the debate once he had concluded his statement.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AM Atkinson, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There was a need for a care home in Ross-on-Wye.

·         Some families currently travelled a 24 mile round trip to visit elderly relatives.

·         The Planning Inspector had decided that the location was suitable during the previous appeal for a smaller residential home on the site.

·         The application would provide 94 full time jobs which would be welcomed in the current economic climate.

·         The application was in accordance with Policy E5 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and should therefore be approved.

·         The application appeared to result in a good level of employment on employment land.

·         Ross Town Council were also in support of the application. (a statement from the Town Council in support of the application was relayed to Members.)

·         Landscaping and car parking provision at the site should be reconsidered by the applicant.

Members noted that the application was solely for an increase from 60 to 90 beds on the site as an application for a 60 bed unit had already been permitted by the Planning Inspector after the Committee had previously refused it. The issue of parking on the site was echoed with the Committee being of the opinion that further car parking provision was required.

A resolution to Grant Planning Permission was moved and seconded. The Locum lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised the Member who had moved that the application be approved that reasons for approval would be required.  It was confirmed that although the application did not comply with UDP Policies E5 and CF7 of the .This was outweighed by the benefits of the jobs that would be created, the application would not result in a shortfall in Employment land; the site was sustainable and considerable weight was given to the Inspectors Appeal decision on part of the site. In response to a further question from the Locum Lawyer, the Member who had moved the motion to approve the application confirmed that conditions relating to noise, highways, landscaping, compliance with plans and any other conditions deemed necessary by officers would be required as well as a Section 106 agreement addressing the highways works referred to in the report.

Members continued to discuss the application and were generally in support of it although some concern was expressed in respect of the proposed design of the development. Further reasons for approving the application were also put forward by the Committee during their debate, these included Policies S1, S4, E5 and DR2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

In response to points raised during the debate, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that there was alternative employment land at Model Farm at Oveross. He also advised that the proposed car parking provision was actually in excess of that required by the relevant council policy. Finally in light of the comments made by Members were they proposing that a commencement time of one year or three years be considered in respect of the application.

Members were of the opinion that the application should be subject to a one year commencement period from the date of the decision notice after the Section 106 had been signed.

Councillor AM Atkinson was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and requested that the application be approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement, and with the Conditions   referred to and any further conditions deemed necessary by officers.