Decision details

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that twenty one additional letters of objection had been received which mainly reiterated the comments already summarised within the representations section of the report]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee of an additional condition as detailed below:

The development hereby permitted shall be occupied by a maximum 15 persons.

Reason: To avoid an intensification of use of the site]

[NOTE 3: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Graham Sturdy attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Miss Catriona Fraser spoke in support.]

The Committee considered a Section 73 Application which proposed to remove condition 5 of planning application 82/0212. The property would remain with Use Class C2. No external alterations are proposed.    

At the request of the Chairman the Planning Officer responded to a number of queries raised by the public speaker. It was the Planning Officer’s opinion that the application did comply with policy CS13 of the Core Strategy in that it supported the development of specialist accommodation for older people and vulnerable Groups (which included those who were mentally or physically disabled). It was confirmed that there would be three parking spaces provided on site for staff, the residents would not have cars and that the site was in a CPZ area so there would be no overspill of parking on surrounding roads as this would be subject to enforcement control. The application did not propose to increase the number of bedrooms and would not intensify the use of the existing site.

A number of Committee Members were sympathetic to the concerns that had been raised by the residents and agreed that the unknown factor of who would be resident at the property was worrying. Members flagged up concerns regarding the change of use to the premises, however Planning Officers confirmed that the property would remain within class C2 use and that the application proposed the removal of condition 5 of planning application 82/0212 which would only widen the restriction on the age of residents.

Members asked that a more restricted definition be provided regarding the type of mental and physical conditions that would be acceptable for occupants at the premises. It was noted that condition 3 partially covered this point, however the advice from Officers was that it would be challenging to word a condition that would meet the relevant legal tests that would exclude certain people. It was suggested that further definition of vulnerable groups as noted in policy CS13 could be added to condition 3 to strengthen this further.

Despite the proposed 24/7 on site staff presence, the number of staff on site troubled some Members of the Committee. They considered that three staff on site during the day and one overnight would not be sufficient.

Some Members of the Committee supported the application and thought there was very little ground for refusal.

After listening to the comments of the Committee, Councillor N Martin expressed her concern at the application and proposed to refuse the application on the grounds that it was ill considered, inappropriate and that no consultation had taken place or conditions put in place to mitigate the concerns raised by residents. Councillor N Martin did not think that the application complied with Policy CS13 or that a need for the development had been justified. The removal of condition 5 of planning application 82/0212 would be permanent and the application offered no reassurance for the future use of the site.

The clear advice from Chris Dale, Development Manager, was that none of these reasons would be appropriate grounds for refusal of the application and it would be very unlikely that any of them would stand up during the appeal process.

A Member also queried whether concerns regarding parking would be sufficient reason for refusal, however they were advised that as the site was within a CPZ (where visitors would not be allowed to park) it was not considered that this would cause a problem.

If these were not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application, Councillor N Martin requested that additional conditions be added should the application be approved. These additional conditions were detailed below;

‘A requirement for continuous 24 hour staff presence on site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.’ and

‘Restrict the definition of vulnerable groups to that defined within the explanatory text for Policy CS13’

The Committee was supportive of the additional conditions as noted above.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, I Eastwood and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Against:                              Cllrs S Ashall, A Boote, G Chrystie and N Martin.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllrs G Cundy (Chairman) and M A Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore not approved.

Peter Bryant, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, cautioned the Committee that this decision would put the Local Planning Authority in a difficult position as the clear advice from Officers had been that the Committee had provided no clear sustainable reason on why the application should be refused. This would mean that the decision would be almost impossible to defend on Appeal and that it was likely that significant costs would be levied against the Council if their decision was overturned. Regarding this advice, Councillor I Eastwood proposed and it was duly seconded, a motion to vote again on approval of the application.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, G Cundy, I Eastwood and L Morales.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              Cllrs S Ashall, A Boote, G Chrystie and N Martin.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllr M A Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  1

The vote was therefore equal.  In accordance with Standing Order 22.5, in the case of an equality of votes, the Chairman may, provided he had cast a first vote, cast a second or casting vote. As Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor G Cundy used his casting vote to approve the application.

RESOLVED

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and additional conditions as noted in these minutes.