Agenda item

(Councillor Strengiel re-joined his seat as a member of Planning Committee.)

 

The Principal Planning Officer:

 

a.    advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a three storey building to accommodate a 72 bedroom care home accommodating 20 general car parking spaces for staff and visitors, a further two for disabled users and cycle storage

 

b.    described the application site located on the south-western side of Long Leys Road to the western side of the city, formerly the site of the Social Education Centre with allotments to all sides and mature planting to the northern and south-western corners

 

c.    advised that the site lay within the St George’s Character Area of the Lincoln Townscape Assessment (LTA), predominantly a residential area incorporating some light industrial/commercial buildings extending either side of Long Leys Road further to the east of the site

 

d.    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application as follows:-

 

·         Policy LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

·         Policy LP2: The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·         Policy LP3: Level and Distribution of Growth

·         Policy LP5: Delivering Prosperity and Jobs

·         Policy LP10: Meeting Accommodation Needs

·         Policy LP13: Accessibility and Transport

·         Policy LP14: Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

·         Policy LP16: Development on Land affected by Contamination

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

·         Policy LP31: Lincoln's Economy

·         Policy LP36: Access and Movement within the Lincoln Area

·         National Planning Policy Framework                  

 

d.    referred to the update sheet which contained further images submitted by objectors but omitted from the original responses contained within the officer’s report in respect of the application

 

f.     made reference to the travel plan for the proposed care home submitted on behalf of the applicant, which had been e mailed to members of Planning Committee, paper copies were also available should members wish to view it

 

g.    highlighted the main issues relating to the proposals as follows:-

 

·         The Principle of the Development;

·         The Impact of the Design of the Proposals;

·         Sustainable Access, Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity;

·         The Implications of the Proposals upon Amenity; and

·         Other Matters

 

h.    concluded that:

 

·         Conclusion whether a development was sustainable was a decision that had to be taken in the round having regard to all of the dimensions that went to constitute sustainable development.

·         In this case, officers considered that the development would deliver economic and social sustainability directly through the construction of the development and the jobs created by the development. In addition, the location of care facilities within the city would benefit the health and social wellbeing of those living within the city if they choose to utilise a care home.

·         The implications upon the character of the area and the impact of the development upon the general amenities would not have negative sustainability implications for the local community, as they would lead to a development that would be socially sustainable. What was more, with suitable schemes to deal with contamination, drainage and landscaping, the development would be environmentally sustainable.

·         Thus, assessing the development as a whole in relation to its economic, social and environmental dimensions and benefits, officers were satisfied that the proposals could be considered as sustainable development and would accord with the Local Plan and Framework.

 

Mr Chris Hobbs, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposals, covering the following points:-

 

·         He hoped what he was going to say would help councillors come to the right decision this evening.

·         The main concerns expressed by residents related to the design of the proposed development.

·         The building appeared huge at three storey.

·         The mass of the building at the road frontage would impact on the character and aspect of the local area.

·         The area was given priority in the Local Plan to be maintained as open space.

·         The whole area was open and should remain an open aspect.

·         The requirement for staffing a 72 bedded home was subject to resident need and not the design of the building.

·         The provision of twenty general car parking spaces for a 72 bedded home was not realistic and would inevitably result in overspill onto residential streets.

·         The previous Social Education Centre building was a single low level building which did not detract from the local area.

·         The current plans appeared more like an office/industrial warehouse.

·         Alternative photographs of more suitable structures had been submitted which he hoped would help to inform tonight’s decision.

 

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate representing local residents, covering the following main points:

 

·         A care home was a good use for the site, however there were issues of scale/height and massing.

·         The existing plans looked like a hotel rather than a care home.

·         This was currently a rural setting in a very pleasant area which should be retained.

·         A smaller development would be more appropriate.

·         The ‘invisible’ travel plan was very vague.

·         The applicant had not made clear numbers of staff required for the development.

·         There was no reference to parking for visitors/delivery vehicles.

·         Additional parking was required to prevent overspill to residential streets in the area.

·         Councillor Murray read out a statement from County Councillor Rob Parker raising issues in respect of parking provision, traffic congestion and highway safety.

·         It was imperative to know how many people would require car parking spaces.

 

Joanne Sutcliffe, representing LNT Construction Ltd, the applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         The scale/massing of the proposed development was appropriate for a community building.

·         The building addressed short comings in the street appearance.

·         Planning permission for the site was already approved.

·         The design of the build had been revised to come up with an improved scheme.

·         The revised scheme was smaller than the approved plans.

·         The Travel Plan submitted provided details of arrivals/departures at the care home.

·         55 jobs would be created.

·         A maximum of 22 staff members would be on site at any one time.

·         84% of staff would live within walking distance of the care home and not need use of a car.

·         Car sharing/staff walking to work was taken very seriously by the care organisation and mentioned at interview stage.

·         There would be provision of 20 car parking spaces on site and 8 cycle spaces.

·         Residents were likely to receive visitors in the evening when there were less staff on site.

·         Shift patterns would be set to limit any disturbance to local residents.

·         There would be a maximum of 8 delivery vehicles per week.

·         Laundering was carried out ‘on site’.

·         The development would be a community facility with jobs filled locally.

·         The care home would offer a greater quality of life for residents and a much needed local service.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, commenting as follows:

 

·         There were other 2-3 storey buildings in the area.

·         The travel plan was welcomed but needed to be policed.

·         Access/egress for deliveries was not depicted well on the plans.

·         Extant planning permission already existed for a three storey care home with 3 extra bedrooms.

·         Specialist staff would come from further afield to care for residents, not just on foot.

·         The bus service to the area was not the best.

·         Additional parking spaces would be welcomed to reduce overspill onto residential streets.

·         The previous granted application included 36 car parking spaces.

·         The Travel Plan gave an indication of parking on other similar operational sites with ample space.

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         Most of the contention seemed to focus on car parking spaces and the travel plan.

·         There was potential to have more car parking spaces on site should the need arise.

·         The travel plan was a live document throughout the life of the development. Officers could ask the applicant to update the travel plan with a firm commitment to provide additional car parking spaces in the future if required. Alternatively, delegated powers could be given to officers to ask for such provision to be provided before the application was determined.

 

A motion was moved and seconded that a condition be imposed on the grant of planning permission requiring additional car parking spaces to be provided as part of the scheme.

 

The motion was put to the vote and fell.

 

A motion was moved and seconded that authority be delegated to officers to monitor the need for additional car parking spaces through the travel plan, to be implemented if and when required at a future date.

 

The motion was put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to:

 

1.    Planning conditions covering the matters listed below:

·         Timeframe of Permission (3 years)

·         Approved Plans

·         Materials

·         Landscaping

·         Contaminated Land

·         Surface Water

·         Foul Water

·         Implementation of Travel Plan

·         Implementation of Boundary Details

·         Construction and Delivery Hours

 

2.    No drainage works shall commence until a surface water management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No hard-standing areas to be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON

 

To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.

 

3.    Authority be delegated to the Planning Manager to monitor the need for additional car parking spaces within the care home site through the travel plan, to be provided if required at a future date