Agenda item

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the Ward Member requested it be determined by Planning Committee as opposed to being determined under Delegated Powers.

Having declared an interest, Councillor Woodall retired from the meeting room and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

The Chair announced that the primary objector speaking on the application, Mrs Eileen McMahon, was known to Members of the Labour party but that it would not play a part in their decision and that Members would remain impartial.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 9 to 23 of the Update Reports pack. Officers clarified that since the publication of the agenda, some more recent photographs were obtained which Officers felt necessitated an updated presentation for Members. Furthermore the amended and additional Conditions detailed on page 8 of the Update Reports pack were highlighted to Members.

The application was for Stonebridge Nursing Home, 178 – 180 Birchfield Road, Headless Cross, Redditch and sought a two-storey rear and front extension to improve facilities.

Officers drew Members attention to the site plans detailed on pages 12 and 14 of the Update Reports pack, highlighting the proposed extension locations shown on page 14. Officers also drew Members attention to 203 Birchfield Road opposite which was also owned by the nursing home, and which accommodated some employee parking.

The extensions which would be 5x7.5x2.8m and 5.75x7.85x10.5m for the front and rear extensions respectively, would create an additional 3 bedrooms within the home. The alterations to the building were shown on pages 32 and 33 of the update reports pack, labelled as rooms 1-10.

There were 9 separate objections from 5 Members of the public, which were summarised in the report. The main reason for objection was the impact on highways and parking. There were no objections from statutory consultees which included Worcester County Council, Highways (County Highways).

Officers detailed that when assessing parking spaces required for a care home, in accordance with WCC Parking standards, 1 space was required per 4 residents. As the plan detailed 29 spaces which was an increase of 9 spaces, this was compliant with parking standards.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mrs Eileen McMahon, Local Resident and Councillor Barker Smith, Ward Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the development. A statement was also read out by Officers on behalf of Philip Edmunds, the Applicant, in support of the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.

• As the road was designated as unclassified there was no requirement for the developer to submit a planning application for the parking spaces outside number 178/180.
• The size of the development has increased since the care home was established and was evidenced by the planning history. It was usual for the impact of the development to be assessed rather than just the size increase. Officers did not feel that the impact was severe.
• The location of the waste bins was not shown on the plans. However, that detail was not required for the planning application and was not a material planning consideration.
• That the disabled spaces were split between the two sites.
• The Informative requested by WRS regarding the contaminated Land 250m away was a standard Informative in place so there was a process if anything was discovered. There was no identified immediate risk to the site.
• That a construction management plan would be submitted under Condition 5 to manage the impact of the development and also to identify locations for material storage and workers quarters.

The previous dedicated hatched Ambulance space shown on page 20 of the Update Reports pack was to be repositioned between new parking spaces and Officers detailed to Members the position of this and a second ambulance point on the site near the entrance.

Officers detailed that currently the Care home had capacity for 52 residents with some of the rooms having shared facilities. The application was to give all rooms an en-suite facility with some widening of corridors. Officers further clarified that the care home licence currently permitted up to 55 residents so would not require a change. Additionally, there would be no increase in employees on site.

Members then debated the Application which officers had recommended for approval.

Members expressed the opinion that they did not consider the information presented by County Highways to be robust and that in their opinion it did not adequately stand up to scrutiny and there would be an impact on the highways network within the area, the question was how severe. Members further commented that even though it may not have been previously marked as such, it did not stop Employees using some of the “new parking” areas for parking previously. Therefore, the increase in parking by the development would be less than that claimed by the developer. Members drew Officers attention to the image on Page 23 of the Update Reports pack which appeared to show a vehicle parked in a spot not currently designated for parking. Officers detailed that they could not comment on that matter but that the new plan would be conditioned as part of the application.

After Comments from Members, Officers clarified that the storage of Medical/food waste was an operational issue for the care home and that it would not form a material planning consideration. Additionally, Officers highlighted that the care Home would be bound by their own regulations in regard to Health and Safety and Care arrangements, therefore, those matters could not be considered material planning considerations.

Members commented that the Planning Committee must consider an application on its Merits and expressed the opinion that the care home provided a much-needed benefit for the Borough and that 3 additional bedrooms would not have a significant impact the highways network. Furthermore, without an objection from relevant consultees there was not a good material Planning reason on which to refuse the application. Therefore, on being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

• Conditions 1,3,4,5 and the Informative as Outlined on pages 33 to 34 of the Public Reports pack.
• Amended Condition 2 as Outlined on page 8 of the Update Reports pack
• The Additional Condition 6 as Outlined on page 8 of the Update Reports pack