Agenda item - BH2014/03875, 22 Carden Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing day care centre (D1) and erection of two storey care home (C2).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Patcham

Demolition of existing day care centre (D1) and erection of two

storey care home (C2).

(1)          It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)          The Planning Manager, (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, including one showing the front of  the building  and its relationship with the neighbouring properties and the rear elevation and, plans and elevational drawings including views taken from the rear looking towards the application site. Comparative plans were shown indicating the scheme as proposed and including the scheme in respect of 24 Carden Avenue (for which there was an extant permission) if built. It was confirmed that that the applicants and the Council’s Estates Team had clarified that the western site boundary did not encroach onto Council land.

(3)          It was explained that the application site comprised a detached chalet style bungalow which had last been used as a day care centre for up to 12 persons with learning disabilities. The property had a large rear garden which sloped upwards steeply towards the rear of the site with some terraced level areas. The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the loss of the day care centre and erection of a care home, the design of the proposal and its impact on the character of the area, transport impacts as well as landscape and sustainability considerations.

(4)          It was considered that the proposed development would provide residential care accommodation for up to 16 persons with learning disabilities within a suitably scaled, positioned and designed building that would not harm the appearance of the site or wider street scene. Further the building, as revised, would not substantially harm the amenities of adjacent occupiers and would suitably mitigate its impact on the safe operation of the public highway, in accordance with development plan policies. Minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(5)          Mrs Young spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the application. She stated that if built the proposed development would dwarf their own property and would be completely unneighbourly as it would severely compromise their amenity and would have a detrimental impact on them and on the other properties immediately nearby. The outside space to be provided would be inadequate and could result in up to 35-38 individuals using space in close proximity to their home. It could also have implications in terms of increased traffic flow and generate additional waste which could give rise to unacceptable odour and/or attract rodents.

(6)          Councillor Wares spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposed scheme and those of his fellow ward councillors. He concurred with all that had been said by the objector and considered that the proposal represented a clear overdevelopment of the site. The scheme sought to shoe horn a much larger building than the existing onto a site which was far too small for the level of development proposed and which would dwarf the neighbouring properties. Councillor Wares and his ward colleagues considered that given the level of care facilities in the area that this should be retained as a dwelling house. It would generate far higher levels of traffic and would also create on street parking problems. Insufficient parking space would be provided on site for the 19 staff to be employed or for visitors and the level of on-street available was already fully used.

(7)          Mr Sayer spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He explained that 16 staff would be employed on a shift basis (i.e., all 16 would not be present at any one time). The applicants were established record for effective delivery of care, at over 100 homes catering to those with a variety of special needs. This scheme would bring together two smaller care homes which would be closing. Existing experienced staff, the majority of whom would not travel to work by car, would be transferring there. The facility was intended to equip those living there to live independently, residents had very few visitors and therefore additional traffic/parking requirements would be minimal.

(8)          In answer to questions by Councillor K Norman Mr Sayer explained that the 16 staff employed worked across 3 shifts 7 nights per week. Consistent levels of staffing would be provided at all times.

(9)          Mr Sayer explained in answer to questions by Councillor Janio that this facility would replace two smaller care homes currently located in Vallance Gardens and Walsingham Road, Hove respectively. Only two staff drove to work and it was not anticipated that would change as other members of staff arrived each day mainly by public transport with some walking to work.

              Questions for Officers

(10)       Councillors Barradell and Miller requested further sight of the plans delineating the differences between this scheme and that previously approved and both with and without the approved scheme at no 24.

(11)       Councillor Barradell and Miller also enquired regarding the colour of the brick and render finishes proposed and whether conditions could be added to ensure that this scheme if approved and that for no 24 would be of matching/complementary materials. It was explained that conditions could not be added to the previously granted permission for no 24, however the condition requiring approval of materials had yet to be discharged. Materials in respect of both applications would need to be approved prior to commencement of any works.

(12)       Councillor Gilbey enquired whether the proposed scheme would be situated closer to neighbouring bedrooms than the existing building and also regarding the distances between the rear elevations and those of the neighbouring properties, this was shown including the level of set back of the upper floors by reference to the relevant site plans and elevational drawings. Councillor Gilbey also sought clarification in respect of the proposed traffic management measures. The Principal Transport Officer, Steven Shaw, stated that subject to an appropriate contribution to fund the cost of providing double yellow lines outside and opposite the site to enable safer access/egress arrangements the proposals were considered to be acceptable.

(13)       Councillor Miller sought clarification of the distance between the development and the lounge windows of the neighbouring property. These distances were given and it was explained that windows to the side elevation would be located adjacent to secondary windows of that property at their closest point

(14)       Councillor Mac Cafferty sought confirmation that guidance in relation to potential loss of light and other thresholds in relation to the neighbouring property had been respected and also the BREAM level required to be met. It was confirmed that all necessary requirements had been met and that “very good” would need to be achieved.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Barradell stated that whilst she was not particularly enamoured of the design she considered that her hands were somewhat tied in view of the previous decisions taken regarding use of the site. Councillor Miller stated that whilst he understood that any application needed to be considered on its individual merits it was also the case that the outcome of previous applications in relation to the site were relevant planning considerations.

(16)       Councillor Morris considered that it appeared that the Committees decision making powers were fettered as a result of previous decisions taken. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward explained that this was not the case, however, notwithstanding that, Members should consider each application with a neutral mind, past history including decisions of a Planning Inspector were germane material planning considerations.

(17)       Councillor Littman stated it was a matter of balance and the role of the Committee was to make a balanced assessment on planning grounds.

(18)       Councillor K Norman noted all that had been said but stated that in his view the application represented overdevelopment of the site which he felt unable to support Councillors A Norman and Janio concurred in that view.

(19)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 5 minded to grant planning permission was granted.

45.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.