Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Change of use of care home to 16 residential apartments (C3 use), with roof extension to comprise increased ridge height, dormer windows and rooflights, with internal and external alterations.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01492/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 9 minutes 16 seconds

 

N.B. Councillor Nigel Mason declared a predetermination on this item and moved to the public speaking gallery to present as Member advocate.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that the Applicant had agreed to the pre commencement conditions set out within the recommendations.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/01492/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The increase to the height ridge would be 1.5 metres to the main building, and 0.6 metres to the existing two storey side.

·       The surrounding buildings had higher elevations.

·       There was a Section 106 (s106) payment item for £15 for Childcare services.

·       There was an off-site contribution for affordable housing in the S106 agreement.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Nigel Mason to speak against the application. Councillor Mason thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       There were concerns regarding parking on the site.

·       There were road safety concerns as the site was on a known traffic hot spot.

·       The application had 12 parking spaces, but had 16 apartments, this was below the guidelines which stated that for this size development there should be 18 resident parking spaces and 12 visitor parking spaces.

·       The parking space explanation at 4.3.33 and 4.3.34 of the report did not appease the situation.

·       It was likely that the majority of residents would have at least one car, and parking would therefore spill out onto the surround already overcrowded streets, causing a traffic problem in an already congested area.

·       The roads surrounding the development were frequently congested and the traffic light junction onto Bedford Road caused chaos, leading to the area being gridlocked.

·       There would be addition traffic congestion from any construction traffic.

·       The conversion of the care home would lead to the loss of a viable business and residential beds. There was an aging population, and this conversion was not in the best interest of the public.

·       Raising the roofline would have an impact on the character of the area.

·       Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should be applied in this matter as there would be an unacceptable impact on the traffic system in this area.

·       The application offered too many flats, with no affordable housing and an inadequate amount of parking.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Nigel Mason for his presentation.

 

N.B Councillor Nigel Mason left the Chamber at 19:52 for the duration of this item.

 

The Chair invited Mr James Gran to speak as agent to the applicant, in support of the application. Mr Gran thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The roof extension and the conversion had received a positive response from Highway and Officers.

·       There was an under provision of parking spaces, however the site was close to the main amenities of Hitchin.

·       There would be 9 dwellings for single users, 4 of these units would not have a parking space. There was an onsite parking for 19 cycle and visitors could use the nearby public transport.

·       It was a 6 minute walk from the site into Hitchin town centre and a 3 minute walk to local leisure facilities and a supermarket.

·       It was a 8 minute cycle ride to Hitchin train station and a 1 minute walk to the nearest bus stop.

·       The care home currently employed 17 full time staff and 12 part time staff. It was unlikely that the conversion would see an increase in trip generation. The development was not likely to create more traffic compared to now and was acceptable under T2 of the Local Plan.

·       Section 115 of the NPPF stated that developments of this kind should only be refused on Highways grounds, Highway had not objected to this application.

·       There was an under provision of parking on the 4 small dwellings however, taking into account the existing usage it was felt that this would not have a severe impact on the current traffic situation.

·       The boundary wall would be lowered to aid visibility, and the entrance would be widened.

·       The was an off site commuted sum of £1M for the provision of affordable housing.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Gran advised that:

 

·       It was difficult to provide affordable housing in a single block conversion. There would be issues regarding management fees and complications with social landlords and therefore an off-site contribution was deemed an acceptable alternative.

·       The 4 smallest dwelling would not be provided with an allocated parking space. This would be made clear in any documents. It was felt that the requirement for a parking space on these dwellings was less than that of the two bedroom dwellings.

·       The smallest dwellings were not deemed as family sized and there was, more demand for parking spaces with the larger dwellings.

·       Young professions were less likely to require a parking space.

·       The technical space for a dwelling was set nationally. All the units meet with this requirement and were classed as either single or double. There were 9 dwellings classed as 1 person, 1 bedroom dwellings according to the technical space recommendations.

·       The number of dwellers could not be policed other than by housing welfare standards, therefore the intention was to trickle the parking spaces from largest to smallest.

·       Other vehicles would need to find somewhere off site to park.

·       The site would be deemed as private land and those residents that had not been allocated a parking space would not be able to park onsite.

·       The site was in a sustainable location with amenities on its doorstep.

·       Public transport was in close proximity to the site and there was a national shift to homeworking.

·       There would be allocated parking spaces and it would be clear in legal documents which space belonged to which dwelling.

·       At least 1 of the parking spaces could be widen for disabled access.

·       There were no lifts in the floor plan.

·       The majority of the 1 bedroom dwellings were on the ground floor.

 

In response to a point of clarification, the Senior Planning Officer advised that allocated parking space could not form part of a planning condition, but it was likely that they would be highlighted in any purchase contracts.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Gran for his presentation.

 

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The policy regarding parking spaces was based on bedrooms and not occupancy.

·       The NPPF had caveats regarding parking, for sustainable locations, this development fell within the caveat.

·       The site was on 2 bus links.

·       It was likely that there would be a buyer beware clause in purchase contracts.

·       Highways had no objection to the application.

·       There was S106 mitigation for transport improvements.

·       There was onsite cycle parking.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·       There were concerns regarding the number of parking spaces and the assumption that younger people and the elderly may not have a car, however these were not grounds to refuse.

·       T2 of the local plan made it possible to reduce parking space requirements, and there was a small amount of on street parking.

·       The parking spaces were not ideal and there were no disabled spaces, but also no sustainable reason to reject the application.

·       It was regrettable to lose a care home.

·       Anyone purchasing a dwelling would be advised in advance if there was a parking space allocated.

·       A precedent had been set by the Letchworth Black Squirrel site approval of 18 dwellings and no onsite parking.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/01492/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 20:33