New building for the care of the elderly mentally infirm (Dementia Unit) providing accommodation for 30 residents.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation subject to a Section 106 agreement to tie the proposed building to the existing Pencombe Hall.

 

The Principal 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, Mr Mitchell, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Brown, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

Councillor A Seldon, one of the local ward members, had advised the Chairman that he could not be present at the meeting but had provided the Democratic Services Officer with a written statement which was read out to the Committee.[Amended at Planning Committee 29 August 2012]

                 

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

 

·         The proposal was not acceptable due to the scale and mass of the development and the proposed location.

·         The development would result in a dominant and discordant feature in an isolated and unsustainable location.

·         The application was not finely balanced, as suggested in the officer’s report, and it should be refused contrary to the recommendation.

·         Due to the isolated rural location and infrequent bus service the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy CF7.

·         A previous application on the site was refused by Committee in 2007 due to the fact that the site was unsustainable.

·         The application was found to be contrary to Policies S1, S2 and DR7 at that time, the policies all remain and a refusal should be based on those same policies.

·         It could not be guaranteed that either beds or jobs associated with the proposal would go to local people.

·         An application was approved for 40 beds in 2007, which had never been implemented, and surely this proved that there was not a need for such a large number of additional beds in the County.

·         A condition had been recommended limiting the use of the beds to elderly mentally infirm patients, would this be enforceable.

·         The application could not be viewed as an extension as it was a separate self-contained unit which would raise doubts over the future of Pencombe Hall.

·         The proposed development was oversized, overbearing and dominant and did not compliment Pencombe Hall as the proposed finish was completely different to the existing building.

·         The concerns raised by the residents of the neighbouring coach house in respect of light pollution and overlooking should be considered.

·         Landscaping on the site should enhance the proposed development and not try to hide it; if a development has to be hidden is it really acceptable. 

 

In response to a question from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the previous application on the site, although for outline permission only, was in a similar location to the current proposal but it was larger.

 

Members discussed the application with a number of the Committee in general agreement with the local ward member. They felt that the proposed development was out of keeping with the existing Pencombe Hall due to its scale, mass and design. They also had concerns in respect of the unsustainable nature of the site. It was suggested by two members of the Committee that a smaller 20 bed courtyard style development on the site would be welcomed.

 

However other Members of the Committee were of the opinion that the application should be approved with an additional condition tying the new building to the existing Pencombe Hall in order to address concerns in respect of the long term future of the existing building. It was noted that a 40 bed facility had already been granted on the site in 2007, although it was further noted that the permission had now lapsed.

 

One Member of the Committee noted that Pencombe Hall had been an EMI unit for 25 years, it was considered that the facility would not have remained open for such a long period of time had it not been sustainable. It was further noted that due to the way the land sloped the original building would still remain the dominant feature on the site.

 

In response to the point in respect of a legal tie between the two buildings, to ensure that the development remained as an extension and addition to the existing Hall, and could not be sold off and operated independently from the Hall,   the Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised that this could be achieved through a Section 106 agreement. In response to a further question the Head of Neighbourhood Planning confirmed that the tie could also be achieved through a suitable condition but that a section 106 agreement would be more legally secure.

 

Members continued to debate the application and noted that the application was finely balanced. The concerns in respect of drainage were addressed by the Committee with reference being made to the committee report and update sheet which advised that the drainage issues had been overcome. The support from the Parish Council was also noted.

 

In reference to the rural setting of the development, a number of members were of the opinion that this was one of the key factors that would make the development appealing to people seeking the required level of care.

 

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed building was 52 metres in length at its longest point and 23 metres wide at its widest point.

 

Councillor Lester was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and raised additional points, including:

 

·         The application had resulted in just three letters of support but had received 13 letters of objection as well as a petition signed by 45 people.

·         The proposed extension was larger than the existing building.

·         The proposal would result in 60 care beds in an unsustainable location.

 

A motion to refuse the application contrary to the case officer’s recommendation was lost and the resolution as set out below was then agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and there being no objection from Natural England, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

 

2.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

3.         D04 Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards

 

4.         D10 Specification of guttering and downpipes

 

5.         F17 Obscure glazing to windows

 

6.         G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

 

7.         G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

 

8.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

9.         The development hereby approved shall not commence until a plan/specification identifying the treatment of foul and surface water drainage from the whole site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall give projected flow rates for foul discharge and shall also ensure nutrient out-fall is below the consented threshold. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

 

Reason: To protect the water environment, ensure foul drainage complies with consented minimum discharges and to conform to Policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and Habitats Regulations 2010.

 

10.       B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

11.       That the facility be used solely for the usage as specified in the application.

 

REASON FOR APPROVAL:

 

1.    The proposal is an addition to an existing, well established site, with the new proposed building contained within the existing planning unit. Therefore the principle of an extension is considered acceptable and sustainable. The overall scale of the building reflects the current identified need within the area and has been carefully designed and sited on the site to minimise the landscape impact, whilst ensuring the context and constraints of the existing site are protected. The proposal will not harm the visual landscape character or setting of the impressive existing Hall building.  The overall design of the proposal has also ensured that there will be no significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents. The proposal therefore accords with Policies S1, CF7 and DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

INFORMATIVE

 

1.         The applicant is advised to contact the Local Planning Authority in relation to condition 9 above prior to submitting details so that advise can be given in relation to nutrient out fall and the consented thresholds.