Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2019 were submitted and approved as a correct record, and the Chair was authorised to sign them.

There were no apologies given and there were no notifications of substitute Members.

Councillor Barry Taylor declared a Prejudicial Interest in minute 37, 282 Kings Drive as he was the owner of a care home. He withdrew from the room while the items were considered and did not vote.

The Chairman to notify the Committee of any items of urgent business to be added to the agenda.

There were none.

The Chairman to report any requests received to address the Committee from a member of the public or from a Councillor in respect of planning applications/items listed and that these applications/items are taken at the commencement of the meeting.

The business of the meeting proceeded in accordance with the agenda.

Planning permission for the demolition of existing house and associated structures and provision of 85 Bed Care Home with Parking, Landscaping and Highway Access – RATTON

Having declared a prejudicial Interest, Councillor Barry Taylor was absent from the room during discussion and voting on this item.

Richard Thomas, local resident, representing Kings Drive Scrutiny Group, addressed the Committee in objection, raising concern regarding the size of the building, the effect on the local environment including trees and the dominating appearance in the local area.

Councillor Freebody, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee (from the public gallery) in objection to the officer recommendations. He referred to the negative impact the proposals would have on the immediate environment, the loss of privacy for neighbouring properties and the insufficient parking.

Alison Knight, agent, spoke in response to the concerns raised, stating that the development was of high quality, the majority of residents in care homes came from within a three mile radius and that vehicle movement was reduced as the majority of residents did not drive and visits were less frequent.

The Committee discussed the application and recognised that there was a requirement for residential care with suitable facilities in the area; the elderly and vulnerable should be prioritised. Members expressed concern at the size of the development, the number of rooms and that it was in in front of the existing building lines. Officers explained that there was not a policy that inhibited this.

Councillor Diplock felt the development was too large and that the developer and planning team be requested to look at the feasibility for a smaller scheme.  For this reason, Councillor Diplock proposed a motion to defer the application. This was seconded by Councillor Maxted.

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3 against): that the application be deferred due to the size/over-massing of the proposed development and to allow the developer and Planning team to liaise on the viability of an alternative development.

Planning permission for the construction of an additional storey and re-modelling of existing building to provide 22 additional residential units (to include sub-division of 1 existing flat into 2 units) together with the retention of 7 existing flats at first floor level  thereby resulting in an combined total of 29 residential units.  Configuration to comprise:  17 flats (9 x studio units and 8 x 1-bed units) at second floor level; 5 no. 1-bed flats on first floor together with retention of existing 7 x 2-bed flats – HAMPDEN PARK

This application was bought back to the Planning Committee following its previous consideration at the meeting on 11^th December 2018, where Members resolved to approve the application subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure provision of affordable housing. The applicant  made the decision to amend the scheme by removing one floor of residential units as the original proposals were not sustainable. Members agreed that the scheme remained an improvement on what currently existed but expressed dissatisfaction at the design and in particular the loss of the ‘Hansard’ roof

Resolved (6 votes in favour and 2 against): That permission be approved.

There were none.