Proposed refurbishment and extension to provide 51 bed spaces.  Demolition of outbuildings.

The Committee were minded to approve the application contrary to the case officer’s recommendation subject to the decision not being called in by the Secretary of State.

 

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) 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 Claridge, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

                 

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

 

·         The application should be approved as there was a need for a dementia facility in the city.

·         Patients deserved to be treated with care compassion and dignity.

·         There were examples of elderly people throughout the county who had cared for loved ones whilst they were suffering with dementia, Alzheimer’s or vascular dementia.

·         There comes a time when people can’t be looked after in their own homes and then facilities such as the one proposed are vital.

·         Respite care was a significant benefit to the proposed home, this would give patients an opportunity to develop relationships with carers whilst offering the families much needed assistance.

·         Half of the population of the County resided in the city, hence the need for a care home within the city at a sustainable site such as the one proposed.

·         Then ability for patients to be able to walk around the home was important hence the design proposed.

·         It was predicted that the number of older people with dementia would rise by 92% by 2030.

·         The number of people aged 85+ in the county was estimated to double by 2026.

·         Only 38% of the 565 bed spaces in a 5 mile radius of the proposed site offered single bedrooms with ensuite facilities.

·         Bed blocking was still a major problem in the County.

·         Although the immediate EMI bed requirement was met this would not remain the case in the coming years. The Council needed to be proactive in dealing with the situation.

·         The proposed site had good rail and bus links and was therefore considered to be a sustainable development.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other local ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

 

·         The comments of the other local ward member were endorsed.

·         The listed building status of the building related to the side and front elevations which needed protecting however the 1970’s additions were of no architectural value and did not add to the character or setting of the original building.

·         The building had been void for four years and was in danger of falling into a dilapidated state.

·         The western elevation may be seen but this is deemed acceptable as part of the overall scheme.

·         The current building was not viable; the proposed extension would make the building a viable proposition.

·         The original application on the site was not acceptable, the applicant came back with a revised plan which was now deemed acceptable.

·         The majority of the concerns raised by the neighbouring resident could be addressed through appropriate conditions.

·         The proposal would preserve and enhance the character of the existing listed building.

·         The vista when approaching the building from the front will remain unaltered.

·         The application should not be viewed as a departure from policy and Members should give weight to various issues in making their determination.

·         The extensions were large but were of a high class contemporary design.

·         Weight had been given to the stable block however following the site inspection it could be considered that the front and side elevations of the main building should form the emphasis of the listed building value.

·         Technically the two-storey 1970’s extension did form part of the listed building however it did nothing to enhance the conservation area or the listed building. The extension would not have been afforded listed building status had it not been for the front and side elevations of the original house which were retained at that time.

·         In relation to HBA1 the main features of the building were preserved and the new works would complement and enhance the building with the extensions being subservient, as required by HBA1.

·         The proposed demolition of parts of the listed building were limited and did not involve all or substantially all of the listed building, therefore the application was not contrary to HBA2.

·         The location, design and setting of the new development complemented the existing building and therefore it was in accordance with Policy HBA4.

·         The application extended an authorised use whilst preserving and enhancing the character and vitality of the area and therefore it should be considered as in accordance with Policy HBA6.

·         There was desperate need for adequate provision of care facilities for the County’s elderly and it was considered that although the application was not ideal in all respects, it did generally comply with the Criteria of the UDP.

·         Conditions to address concerns in respect of the location of the refuse store and various operational aspects could be delegated to officers if the committee saw fit to approve the application.

 

Members opened the debate by discussing the stable block located on the site. It was considered that there may be some benefit in relocating either the entire stable block or just the appropriate historic internal fittings. It was considered that the stable block alone did not warrant listed status but the key aspect was the relationship between the existing building and the stable block.

 

The Committee continued to discuss the application and were generally in support of it although they did note the concerns of the neighbouring residents in respect of overlooking, it was noted that the current proposal had significantly reduced the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Members noted the policy issues raised by the local ward member and were also of the opinion that both Unitary Development Plan Policy CF7 and paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework supported the application due to the fact that the building had been vacant for a number of years.

 

The design of the development was also discussed at length with members noting that the layout of the proposal enabled residents to walk around the home in a circular motion. It was noted that this was a great benefit to residents and would assist in maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

 

In respect of the listed building status Members were of the opinion that the 1970’s extension to the original building was of no benefit and did not preserve or enhance the character of the original listed building. Members welcomed the proposed design and were of the opinion that it did enhance and preserve the listed building.

 

Members noted the policy issues which one the local member had addressed in his opening presentation and felt that Unitary Development Plan Policies HBA1, HBA2, HBA4 and HBA6 could all be interpreted to support the application. They also noted that there was a need for the facility within the city and that the site was sustainable in terms of public transport.

 

One Member of the Committee also noted the comments of the Conservation Manager who had requested a landscaping scheme if the application was approved. She also requested that a further condition be attached to any planning permission to ensure that no mature trees were removed from the site during the construction.

 

Some Members did however voice concerns in respect of the application with particular concern being given to the scale and mass of the proposed development as well as the need to demolish approximately 50% of the existing listed building. It was also noted that the 1970’s extension would have been considered contemporary at the time of the extension and that the proposed extension could also look dated in years to come.

 

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised Members that although they had addressed the issues regarding the impact on the listed building and the loss of the stable block they had not considered the policy issues listed in the case officer’s recommendation for refusing the application. He also added that if the committee were minded to approve the application they would be required to delegate the decision to officers due to the need to refer the listed building application to the Secretary of State in relation to the part demolition of a listed building.

 

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) reiterated the comments of the Development Manager and requested that the committee look at the key policies to decide whether they were of the opinion that the application was compliant to or a departure from the policies stated.

 

In respect of the stable block, the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised that the applicant had stated that he would be happy to retain the internal fittings but could not relocate the entire block as it would not make the development viable.

 

Councillors Nenadich and Wilcox were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and raised additional points, including:

 

·         Not all of the listed building was being removed.

·         The adjoining Nuffield Hospital was considerably larger and was also within the conservation area.

·         The stable was not currently open to the public and the internal fittings could be protected and relocated as part of a Section 106 agreement.

 

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) requested confirmation from the mover and the seconder of the motion in respect of the reasons for granting the three applications being considered, namely planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent. She also requested confirmation that they had considered the policies and were of the opinion that the proposed development was in accordance with UDP Policies HBA1, HBA2 (as it did not involve the demolition of substantially all of the listed building) HBA4, HBA6 and CF7.

 

It was also noted that the application was in accordance with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework and that there was a need for the development. She also sought confirmation from the mover and seconder of the original motion that they adopted the planning reasoning in the report that supported the grant of permissions and consents andthat a Section 106 Agreement would be required to secure the retention and relocation of the internal fittings and fixtures of the stable block.

 

She requested further clarification that the Committee were minded to delegate the wording of the conditions considered per the report as well as any conditions as to the siting of the refuse store and activities associated with the use of the laundry in consultation with the Local Ward Members and Chairman.

 

The mover and seconder of the motion also confirmed that they were happy to delegate the decision to approve the applications, as well as any other conditions considered necessary by Officers, to officers named in the scheme of delegation to Officers and that the wording of the conditions and decision notice also be delegated to Officers in consultation with the local ward members and the Chairman.

 

This confirmation was received prior to members moving to the vote.

 

RESOLVED

 

THAT officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area consent as well as the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the retention and relocation of the internal fittings and fixtures of the stable building subject to clarification of the referral arrangement to the secretary of state.