Issue - meetings

The application was for the construction of a part single, part two storey rear extension (roof accommodation) and alterations and additions to fenestration and rooflights to create additional bedrooms and office space at an existing care home.  Consideration of the application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting in September 2023 to enable a site visit to take place.

Councillor Whatley-Smith spoke in his capacity as Ward Councillor citing concerns about the lack of parking provision on the site.

The Committee considered that the picket fence proposed was out of keeping with the surrounding area.  It was acknowledged that boundary treatments could be secured through conditions if necessary.

The Committee acknowledged that the current parking provision was insufficient for the needs of the business operating on site, with staff being forced to park in the surrounding streets, adding to local congestion and whilst it was proposed that an additional five parking spaces were provided as part of the application there would still be a shortfall of ten spaces on the number required for a facility of its size.

The Committee expressed the view that the original property had been subject to a number of extensions over the years and that, if granted, the additional extensions would result in a built form that dominated not only the site itself but also, due to the site’s topography, neighbouring properties.  The extensions would also enable the expansion of the occupier’s business as a care home; something that would result in an intensification of the site’s use and further exacerbate parking pressures in the vicinity of the site. 

It was felt that all these factors combined would result in harm to the visual amenity of the character of the area and consequently it was considered that the application should be refused.

Councillor Sara Bedford, proposed a motion that the application should be refused on the grounds of over development of the plot, intensification of use, highways concerns, lack of onsite parking and the resultant cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the area. The motion was seconded by Councillor Matthew Bedford, put to the vote and carried unanimously.  It was agreed that the final wording of the refusal notice would be circulated to the Committee for approval.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 23/1043/FUL be refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

NOTE - Wording of Reason for Refusal 

The proposed extension by virtue of its ad hoc nature, siting, proximity to rear boundary and elevated positioning relative to the neighbouring properties to the west would, together with the existing extent of built form, result in the overdevelopment and over intensive use of the site, to the detriment of the character of the area and amenity of neighbouring occupiers.  The overdevelopment of the site is further exacerbated by the increased parking shortfall which would lead to parking on the adjacent highway, to the detriment of the safe movement and free flow of other highway users. The development is therefore contrary to Policies CP1, CP10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8