Agenda item

Proposed extension of existing Care Home to provide seven new en-suite bedrooms including lift and new stairs.

The application is before the Planning Committee following a call-in request from Councillor Fairley due to her concerns that the proposed extension would harm the amenities of neighbouring residents and represent continued overdevelopment of the previous domestic bungalow which is out of keeping with the surrounding dwellings.

The Committee was reminded that this application was before  it following a call-in request from Councillor Fairley due to her concerns that the proposed extension would harm the amenities of neighbouring residents and represent continued overdevelopment of the previous domestic bungalow which was out of keeping with the surrounding dwellings.

It was reported that the proposal related to a part single storey and part first floor extension to the existing care home to provide seven new en-suite bedrooms including lift and new stairs. The residents of Meadowcroft had, since 2000, been people with learning difficulties. It was now the intention of the owners to change the client group to elderly persons, with specialisation in palliative care.

Amended plans had been secured during the processing of the application to reduce the size of the extension and to remove several first floor west-facing windows due to concerns over the impact on neighbours.

Members were made aware that the increased size of the building would not be, in the opinion of Officers, materially harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would result in a neutral impact to existing neighbouring amenities. Whilst no changes  had been proposed to the site access or parking arrangements, Essex Highways Authority had raised no objections in terms of the increased use of the site and the parking provision was considered by them to be acceptable.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (ML) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1)        Addition to Section 5, representations received from Bradfield Parish Council and             comments; and

(2)        Revised Paragraph 6.26 to read: -

6.26    “The 3 metre offset of the first-floor element from the northern boundary with ‘Sundown’ combined with the 12 metre distance from the corner of the first floor element to the rear elevation of that property ensures that any impacts in terms of outlook would be minimal. The hipped nature also assists in reducing the bulk of the extension when viewed from the neighbour’s rear garden.”

Mr Tim Snow, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Alan Coley, on behalf of Councillor Zoe Fairley, thelocal Ward Member and caller-in, spoke against the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor V Guglielmi and unanimously RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Planning Manager (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development due to the following reasons:-

·         The proposed extension and associated increase in the intensification of the site would, if approved,  be out of keeping with the area by reason of the increased use, massing, height, size and overbearing design and therefore result in the adverse harm of neighbouring amenity.

·         Contrary to SPL3, SP7 and design principle of the NPPF.