Proposed demolition of existing Church. Erection of 52 Bed care facility on three floors with ancillary areas and parking.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Phelps and Mr Wood, local residents, spoke in objection to the application Mr Patient, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the proposed care home was in a residential area and adjacent to two other care homes. It was recognised that the community space contained at the church was the only such facility in the electoral division of College and was a sad loss to local residents. There was a limited number of community buildings within the north of the city. However, it was also recognised that there was a need for high quality care facilities locally. Therefore a balance had to be struck between the need for care facilities and the potential loss of community facilities. It was noted that the rear of the site declined towards Admiral Close and the proposed building represented a significant change to the character of the site. The design represented a mix of materials, ridge heights and outlooks. In the absence of a predominant local vernacular the design was not considered out of keeping and the building would be unobtrusive when viewed from Venns lane. However, the building would overlook residential properties within Admiral Close and whilst it was recognised the windows had been removed to the rear of the building to mitigate overlooking and loss of privacy it was queried whether this was sufficient to address concerns regarding residential amenity. Further, there were concerns regarding the impact of lighting from the site on neighbouring properties, the substantial nature of the building proposed and the impact on the landscape and the view of the area from the city.

In accordance with the council's constitution, the adjacent ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the church represented a valuable community asset and an example of important local heritage. It was important to act responsibly in respect of the existing church and any decision to demolish was felt to be premature. A community consultation conducted by the diocese was raised in which the overwhelming majority of local residents had asked for the church to remain in use. A requirement in the NPPF that the loss of a community facility must be justified was undermined by the overwhelming support for the retention of the church within the local community. There was demand for facilities and space for local groups from the local community. A Bill, currently passing through parliament, was raised which was of relevance to the current decision to be considered by the committee; the bill concerned the protection of community facilities. The bat survey attached to the application was felt to be invalid as it had been undertaken at a time when bats were hibernating. Photographic evidence had been submitted by local residents which demonstrated the presence of bats on the site. There had been inadequate assessment of the heritage value of the site which was a requirement of the NPPF. The existing church offered a viable space for community use and the local community had expressed an ongoing interest in utilising the site. Any decision to demolish the church will be irreversible and the deferral or refusal of the application was urged to allow for proper ecological surveys, heritage assessments and further examination of alternative facilities for use by local community groups.

The committee debated the application, the following principal points were raised:

• There was concern regarding the process to secure certificate B relating to the access to the site which was understood to be across private land. Before any further work on the application was undertaken clarification was required regarding the status of this certificate;
• The scale of the building proposed, the massing on site and the proximity to nearby residential properties in Admirals Close was felt to represent an unacceptable and adverse impact on the landscape and residential amenity. The application was therefore contrary to core strategy policies SD1 and LD1;
• the application was in conflict with core strategy policy SC1, there was an absence of local community facilities locally and the building was still viable as a facility for the use of community groups.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, he explained that the committee had engaged with the issues and whilst it was recognised there was a need for care facilities there was also the need for community facilities in the city.

The adjoining ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, he explained the community use of the space had ended in April 2024 however there was local demand for community space.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and Councillor Catherine Gennard seconded a motion that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·       The scale, massing and the proximity of the building to local residential dwellings represented an adverse impact on residential amenity and the landscape and was contrary to core strategy policies SD1 and LD1;

·       The loss of community facilities was contrary to core strategy policy SC; there was an absence of alternative local community facilities and the building was felt to be viable as a space for local community groups; and

·       Clarification was required regarding the status of certificate B in relation to the access to the site.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·       The scale, massing and the proximity of the building to local residential dwellings represented an adverse impact on residential amenity and the landscape and was contrary to core strategy policies SD1 and LD1;

·       The loss of community facilities was contrary to core strategy policy SC1; there was an absence of alternative local community facilities and the building was felt to be viable as a space for local community groups; and

·       Clarification was required regarding the status of certificate B in relation to the access to the site.