Agenda item

Construction of 3 single-storey extensions, security fence and alterations for a proposed Tier 4, Low Security, Non-Forensic, CAMHS (Children and Mental Health Services) Unit

 

Officers presented the report and in doing so explained that the application was not for determination by the Committee.  The background was that the applicant had submitted a valid appeal for non-determination of the application to the Planning Inspectorate. As such, the power to determine the application now rested with the Planning Inspectorate.  Members were being asked to indicate how they “would” have decided the application had it come before them, and this indication would then inform the Council’s position in responding to the appeal.

 

Officers clarified that the specific elements for consideration by the Members related to operational development at the site and that this consisted of the construction of three single -storey extensions, the installation of security fences and other minor alteration works.  An earlier version of the application had also included a Change of Use element.  However, based upon legal opinions obtained by both the applicant and the Council, it was now common ground that a Change of Use application was not needed.  The reason for this was that it was accepted that the proposed use as a low secure hospital for patients classed as “non-forensic” would fall within the same use class as the previous use as a nursing home, namely the category “C2 Residential Use”.

 

Officers took Members through the slides, plans and photographs contained in the Site Plans and Presentations Pack, and in doing so described the lay out of the site, the levels of the land and the relationship of the site with the residential dwellings to the north west, north and south eastern boundaries.  The position of the three metre and two metre proposed security fencing was noted and Members were reminded that planning permission was not required for fences up to two metres in height.  The location of the proposed fencing set back from the site boundary and close to the perimeter of the buildings was noted.

 

The location and scale of the proposed extensions were also highlighted for Members and officers advised that there would be a condition to retain and add to the existing planting on site.

 

Members were referred to the additional information contained in the Update Report.

 

Officers summarised the main issues for Members to consider as being fear of crime, whether the security fence was unduly dominant and its effect on the character of the area.  Officers felt the impact of the fence from public vantage points was limited as it would be located mostly at the side and rear.  Other issues to take into account were noise and disturbance and privacy.  There was likely to be little impact as to parking and highways issues.

 

Members were referred to the detailed conditions set out on pages 30 to 34 of the agenda.

 

Members were advised that the recommendation would have been minded to approve the granting of planning permission.

 

As referred to in the opening of the meeting, the Chair reminded Members that the times for public speaking had been extended.

 

The following speakers addressed the Committee at the invitation of the Chair: -

 

Local residents in objection to the application (up to 21 minutes)

 

·       Mr Peter Hill

·       Mrs Joanne Archer

·       Dr Praveen Kumar

·       Mrs Joanne Beecham

 

Ward Member (3 minutes)

 

Councillor David Thain – Councillor for West Ward

 

In support of the application (up to 21 minutes)

 

Mr Avinash Parmar – agent for the applicant

 

The first five speakers were opposed to the application and raised various issues including choice of location close to residential properties and far from a paediatric emergency unit, fear of crime, the overbearing nature of the security fence, noise disturbance, privacy of patients and local residents, the potential impact of behaviour of patients on residents ability to enjoy their properties and risk of patients absconding.

 

In response to questions from Members officers confirmed that:-

 

·       The function of a CAMHS unit was to provide care; the need for security was incidental to the giving of care and as such the appropriate use category was class C2.  Members were referred to the definition on page 22.

·       Patients at the unit would not be free to leave as they would be detained under the Mental Health Act.

·       The reference to the security fences as “anti-climb” was based on the small size of the mesh designed to inhibit hand or footholds.

·       Fear of crime could be considered as a material planning consideration if linked to the presence of the security fences.

·       No works had been commenced on site in relation to the proposed extensions or security fencing.

 

In debating the application Members commented on the closeness of the security fence to nearby residential dwellings, and the height of the fence which was felt to be intimidating, obstructive and out of character for the area. It was noted that the usual height of a fence in a household location would be 1.8 metres, but the application sought sections of fencing of 3 metres in height. Comments were also made in relation to the changes in levels creating the ability of residents to look into the site, the consequential loss of privacy for patients in the unit and possible issues with noise.

 

Members referred to the issues raised in public speaking around the suitability of the use of the building for the area, and what could be perceived as the contradiction between the classification of the unit as “low secure” when security measures would be required for the protection of the patients, including the 3 metre high security fence.

 

Officers re-iterated to Members that the use of the building was not for decision based on the legal opinions that the use was C2. Officers also advised that it was a requirement of the Royal College of Physicians, as set out on page 24 of the report, that a “low secure” unit should have a 3 metre security fence.

 

Whilst Members indicated that the single storey extension elements and the 2 metre high areas of fecning were acceptable, in further discussion more concerns were raised in relation to the 3 metre high sections of fencing including that it would be out of character with the street scene and overbearing. Members were of the view that the proposals for the fencing had given rise to a genuine fear of crime on the part of nearby residents and there was clearly a high level of concern as evidenced by the number of representations received regarding the application.

 

Following further discussion as to the scope of reasons for refusal, an alternative recommendation was moved and seconded.  The mover of the recommendation summarised the grounds for refusal as arising from the bulk and appearance of the 3 metre security fence, that it would be a means of creating fear of crime, that the fence would not reduce noise and that it would be inconsistent with the location for which it was proposed.  The recommendation also proposed a delegation to officers to finalise the exact wording of the refusal reasons.

 

RESOLVED that :-

 

1.     Having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, that the Local Planning Authority would have been minded to REFUSE full planning permission in the event that an Appeal against non-determination had not been lodged and it had been able to determine the application for the reasons set out below: -

 

The extent and height of the proposed 3 metre high anti-climb security fence and its bulky solid appearance would be an inappropriate design for a means of enclosure and would also unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the locality. Moreover, its scale, appearance and its close alignment to some of the fencing to adjacent dwellings, would be unacceptably overbearing for occupants and thus harmful to their residential amenity. The dominance of the fence would be compounded where stretches of the fence would be set at a substantially higher level than the ground floors of surrounding houses, particularly those adjoining residential properties fronting Shirehampton Close. Furthermore, the dominant extent, scale and appearance of the fence, designed to be anti-climb and highly secure, would unacceptably reinforce and accentuate the fear of crime inherent to the use of the site as a CAMHS Tier 4, inpatients low secure hospital.  These aspects of the proposed development would thereby conflict with the Borough of Redditch High Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document particularly paragraphs 4.4.48 and 6.2.18 which discourages aggressive boundary treatments. The development would also conflict with Policies 39 and 40 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 since it would not reflect or compliment the local surrounding, would not contribute positively to the character of the locality, would not assist in reducing the fear of crime and would not protect and safeguard the amenity of adjoining residents.

 

 

2.     That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure Services to finalise the full wording of the refusal reason based on the issues referred to by Members during the debate and as summarised by the mover of the alternative recommendation.

 

3.     That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure Services to agree to the proposed method for determining the non-determination appeal.

 

 

[ In relation to this agenda item, all Members sitting on the Committee declared an Other Disclosable Interest that Cllr Beecham who was speaking in a personal capacity on this application, was known to them as a fellow Borough Councillor.  All Members remained in the meeting during the deliberation of agenda item 6 and participated in the debate and the vote.]