Agenda item

[NOTE: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that since the report had been published the drainage information had now been submitted. A resolution to this must be agreed in accordance with national policy.]

The Committee considered an application which sought full planning permission for the demolition of the existing Locally Listed building and the construction of a new 4 storey 49no unit extra-care home (Use Class C2), car parking, landscaping and other associated works.

Following a number of questions raised regarding the parking provision the Planning Officer commented that paragraphs 92 -101 of the report set out the details regarding the parking in full. Considering the accessibility of the location and the proximity to the train station the Planning Officer had concluded that this application met an acceptable level of parking. It was noted that there were some Controlled Parking Zones in the area and this would deter unauthorised on street parking. It was noted that SCC Highways had not objected to the application.

The Planning Officer commented that due to the age of residents that would occupy the units, it was likely that many of them would not utilise a parking space. Therefore some of the parking provision could be used for visitors. The development was also a short walking distance from other parking areas. Some Members commented that the age of residents could not with any certainty determine whether they would or would not own a vehicle.

Some Members raised question regarding the difference between Class 2 and Class 3 use; it was noted that this was detailed in the report. Following a further question the Planning Officer explained that Condition 28 coupled with the wording of any legal agreement would restrict the use to Class 2, extra care unit, and regardless of who moved in or what care package they wanted, this classification would remain in perpetuity.

Members sought clarification regarding paragraph 36 in the report and the Locally Listed Building status of the former Greenfield School. The Planning Officer commented that in the report they had stated that it would be hard to replace the heritage contribution of the existing building, however the combination of a well-designed scheme, the need for such accommodation and the impact of the loss of the building, when all taken together it was deemed that the application did meet the requirements of DM20.

Following a comment from a Member questioning the ‘exceptional’ design of the scheme from certain viewpoints, the Planning Officer explained in detail who would be able to see each elevation and what the current views was like from that point.

The Chairman asked whether it would be possible to add an extra advisory to the application regarding the provision of electric charging points. The Planning Officer confirmed that the application met our current policy requirements, but that if the Committee were minded to, he would be happy for an informative to be added to reflect this. The Committee agreed.

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, J Brown, S Dorsett, C Rana and D Roberts.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs D Hughes and L Morales (Chairman)

                                 TOTAL:  2

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions, S.106 Legal Agreement and additional informative as noted in these minutes.