Agenda item

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report which sought approval for the demolition of an existing dwelling and replacement with part single, part 2, and part 3 storey extensions to Rathgar Care Home together with parking and access alterations and associated works, including alterations to the boundary treatments. The Committee heard that following deferral from 4th May 2022 Planning Committee, discussions had taken place with local residents in respect of parking, trees and refuse storage in particular and the applicant had advised that the scale of development and the number of bedrooms could not be further reduced, or the development would no longer be commercially viable. It was also explained that the design of the development was necessary to ensure that there was level access throughout the building. The existing access to the property would be widened to 6m; this was secured by a condition. 10 parking spaces would be provided, including 1 disabled space and 1 EV charging point; these provisions were also secured by a condition. It was noted that Highways had raised parking concerns, however the application had been assessed against the current parking provision of which there was an existing shortfall, and the parking provision would be doubled along with the number of rooms in the care home. This was taken into account by officers, along with the site’s sustainable urban location. Refuse storage for 2 Euro bins was proposed to the rear of the property and 1, which would be used for clinical waste, was proposed to be kept at the front of the property. The trees bordering the application site and neighbouring property would be retained and certain windows on the upper floors of the side elevations would be obscure glazed to ensure no overlooking to the neighbouring property. The side extension would be set further back than the existing property and an additional storey added; due to the distance of any clear glazed windows from the neiqhbouring boundaries any overlooking was not considered sufficiently severe to warrant refusal. The principle of development was considered acceptable, the development would provide specialist accommodation and add to the Council’s 5 year housing supply and contribute to an identified housing need. In respect of concerns around noise, it was noted that Environmental Health had raised no objections to the application subject to the submission of a construction management plan.

Councillor Hallam, in his capacity as a Ward Member for Boothville & Parklands, spoke against the application and thanked those that took part in talks following the application’s deferment in May but noted that the only change was to retain the trees bordering the properties. He stated that the residents of the neighbouring property did not want commercial waste stored by their garden and said that the developer was “shoehorning” housing into a footprint that was too small.

Irene Painter, the owner of the neighbouring property, spoke against the application and highlighted comments that she made at the previous Planning Committee in relation to the trees and existing highways issues. She also stated that the planning officer agreed that that the ambient atmosphere in the garden of her property would be damaged with bins at the rear of the care home and noted that a smaller care home nearby had more bins than were proposed for this development.

In response to a question, Mrs Painter confirmed that the proposed 2 storey extension would be 2-3m from her side patio door.

Helen Reay, a local resident, spoke against the application and voiced concerns around the scale of the proposal, the building extending beyond the existing building line, refuse storage, the lack of amenities and highways and parking issues. She stated that too few changes had been made to the proposal following further consultation, that the neighbouring property would be severely overlooked by the development and noted that the Police had recommended that the bins be kept at the front of the property.

Jennie Harris, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and commented that the development was an important contribution towards the current under-provision of care homes. She noted that the applicant had fulfilled its obligation to carry out further consultations, having done so on 10th May and 22nd June 2022. She advised that the scale of the proposal was needed to ensure that the development remained viable and noted that officers had found the proposal acceptable. She further noted that the proposal would contribute to the Council’s 5-year housing supply and provide a number of employment opportunities.

In response to questions, Ms Harris confirmed that the portacabin that was onsite was not part of the application and would be removed in due course. The bin proposed to be kept at the front of the property would be used for clinical waste; there were 3 bins on the property currently, however 1 was not in use. Regarding parking, Ms Harris explained that the shortfall would be the same as it currently was. The parking spaces had been designed to allow for maximum manoeuvrability and cycle storage was also proposed; there was none on the site currently. A travel plan was also proposed as part of the application. Ms Harris confirmed that the waste would be collected by a private waste collector and not the Council’s contractors. She explained that the application had been amended to provide 17 rooms; this was a reduction from 20 and could not go any lower due to viability constraints. All other options had been considered. A flat level was required throughout the development due to access to fire escapes.

Members discussed the application and made the following observations and comments:

·       Highways and Police concerns had not been sufficiently addressed

·       The application seemed like an overdevelopment and was not sympathetic to the neighbouring property

·       The bins proposed to be kept at the rear of the property were in the wrong place, they should all be kept at the front.

There was no proposer to accept the officer recommendation.

Councillor King proposed and Councillor Beardsworth seconded that the application be refused against the officer recommendation for reasons of parking/highways impact, design, overdevelopment, impact on amenity and refuse storage. This was put to a vote and was unanimously declared carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED contrary to the officer recommendation on the grounds of parking/highways, impact, design, overdevelopment, impact on amenity, and refuse storage with delegated authority to the Chair and Assistant Director of Place and Economy to agree the detailed refusal reasons.