Agenda item

To consider a Planning Application for the demolition of the existing Dorothy Terry House together with ancillary buildings and 203 Evesham Road and the construction of new high dependency dementia housing with care scheme and support accommodation.

Applicant:  Evesham and Pershore Housing Association

(Report attached – Site Plan under separate cover)

Demolition of existing Dorothy Terry House together with

ancillary buildings and 203 Evesham Road;

construction of new high dependency dementia housing

with care scheme, consisting of 42 flats and support accommodation

Applicant:  Evesham and Pershore Housing Association

Mr M Haslam, Agent for the Applicant, addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules.

RESOLVED that

1)         having regard to the Development Plan and to all other material considerations, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to GRANT Planning Permission, subject to:

a)           a planning obligation ensuring that a financial contribution towards improvements to bus shelters close by: and that housing nomination rights be given to Redditch Borough Council; and

b)           the conditions and informatives as summarised in the main report and the following additional conditions:-

     “8.        Use of premises to be a care scheme for people with dementia.

       9.        Café, laundry facility and hair salon located to the west of the site shall be ancillary facilities of the development only and shall not be separated from the scheme in order to be used as independent facilities for use by the general public.

    10.         Mitigation measures referred to in the Bat Mitigation Method Statement Report to be implemented in accordance with guidance set out in PPS9.

     11.        Mitigation measures referred to in the Flood Risk Assessment to be implemented.

     12.        Details of boundary treatment to be submitted and agreed.

     13.        Highway condition – Access, turning and parking.

     14.        Full Arboricultural Method Statement be submitted, approved and implemented”; and

2.         In the event that the planning obligation cannot be completed by 10th September 2010,

            a)         authority be delegated to the Head of Planning & Regeneration to refuse the application, on the basis that, without the planning obligation, the proposed development would be contrary to policy and therefore unacceptable due to the resultant detrimental impacts it could cause to community infrastructure by a lack of provision for their improvements: and

            b)        In the event of a refusal on this ground and the applicant resubmitting the same or a very similar planning application with a completed legal agreement attached, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions summarised above as amended in any relevant subsequent update paper or by Members at this meeting.

(Following the Committee’s decision on this matter, the meeting adjourned from 7.45pm to 7.50pm for the Legal Services Manager to clarify a procedural issue with residents in the public gallery, who had been under the impression that they would be allowed to speak to the Committee on the Planning Application and had become distressed and angry that, further to being informed that they had not been registered to speak, they had not been given the opportunity to state their objections. 

On reconvening the meeting, Members were advised that neither the Chair or Officers had been aware of the residents’ desire to speak to the application and that, so far as they were aware, no request to do so had been made prior to the meeting commencing. 

The chair also confirmed, following advice from Officers, that normal Planning process and procedure had been followed and that the case Officer had, in this particular instance, met twice with residents to explain amendments on the plans and had advised on public speaking procedures on both occasions.   The Chair had therefore considered that all due processes had been properly complied with.)