Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Redevelopment of existing care home and erection of detached 3 to 4 storey 70-bed residential nursing home (Class C2 use) with associated parking, landscaping, amenities and works, following demolition of extensions to existing care home.

RESOLVED: That application 24/02758/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 6 minutes 35 seconds

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented an update and highlighted that:

 

·         Hertfordshire County Council Growth and Infrastructure Unit had confirmed that there was no requirement for a Section 106 (S106) contribution.

·         Since publication of the agenda one of the public responses had changed from neutral to an objection, meaning there were 10 Public objections in total.

·         In paragraph 5.18.4, the wording should be amended to ‘moderate’ rather than a ‘neutral’ impact.

·         The condition ‘10’ should have the word ‘The’ at the start of it.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/02758/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Clare Billing

·         Councillor Ruth Brown

·         Councillor Val Bryant

·         Councillor Ian Mantle

·         Councillor Louise Peace

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

 

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

 

·         Two of the Category B trees would be felled, their location was indicated to the Committee, and that the Category B tree at the front of the property was being retained.

·         Clarified the definition of Category B trees and stated that to replace the 14 trees to be felled 96 would be planted.

·         The extension originally built in the 1980s was not fit for purpose due to updates in patient care and technology.

·         The land was categorised as green belt but was specified in the report as grey belt as it fitted the criteria due to the specific need for care home beds.

·         The replacement extension would reflect the colour of the original building but with modern high-quality materials.

·         Use class C2 was an independent living facility and use class C3 is a independent residential home, which can provide for people with care needs.

·         There would be 2 lifts in the building providing access to all bedrooms.

 

N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson entered the Chamber at 19:27.

 

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Mr Michael Stoddard to speak against the application. Mr Stoddard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         His objection was founded on design guidance published by Letchworth Heritage Foundation and North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG).

·         The SPG states that extensions to listed buildings should be designed to respect the existing buildings characteristics.

·         The proposed flat roof did not match that of the existing building or any of the surrounding dwellings.

·         Any development performed in a conservation area should be to enhance or preserve the area, this proposed extension would not do so.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Stoddard for his presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Mr Martin Drake to speak against the application. Mr Drake thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         The planned extension was not in keeping with the existing one.

·         The development doubled the size of the existing building, and a large four-story building would overwhelm the beauty of the existing building.

·         The plans reminded him of an open aired prison not that of a care home.

·         That the area surrounding the building already had traffic issues and that increasing the bedrooms would make the problem worse with additional staff, visitors and emergency services vehicles.

·         He believed that the application contradicted the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Drake for his presentation and invited the third Public Objector, Mr Mike Dandy to speak against the application. Mr Dandy thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         He was residing in one of the residences behind the development.

·         The planning permission for the original extension was dependent on planting trees for screening, these trees were now 6 metres tall. He believed retaining these trees should be a condition of this application.

·         Replacing these trees with holly would not provide adequate screening in his lifetime.

·         He agreed with the development and the need for more care home spaces.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Drake for his presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Mr Douglas Bond to speak for the application. Mr Bond thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·         This proposal had been in development since 2020 and ongoing discussions with NHDC planning team and Letchworth Heritage Foundation had led to amendments making this a plan that both groups now supported.

·         The existing building was no longer fit for care purposes, nor was it financially viable therefore this development was overdue.

·         The planned development would add an extra 20 care beds for the district to use and create jobs in the area.

·         The NPPF puts the land in the grey belt and the need for these care beds outweighed any negative impact of the development.

·         The applicant was happy to discuss options in regard to felling trees which screened neighbouring residence.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Clare Billing

·         Councillor Emma Fernandes

·         Councillor Val Bryant

·         Councillor Louise Peace

·         Councillor Jon Clayden

 

In response to questions, Mr Bond advised that:

 

·         It was confirmed to Mr Dandy before the meeting that the applicant would be willing to keep the trees screening his dwelling.

·         If the Committee thought it necessary, the trees screening all three dwellings at the back of the development could remain.

·         The development would use heat pumps and insulation to create a more energy efficient building as laid out in page 36 of the published report pack.

·         Residents would be relocated to either a home in St. Albans owned by the applicant or somewhere closer if they preferred. Once the construction was completed, they would be invited back. Staff would also be relocated during construction.

·         Hertfordshire County Council Highways confirmed that the plan had a big enough turning circle for both fire engines, construction vehicles and waste removal lorries.

·         The existing private contractor would continue to provide waste and recycling services when needed again.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Bond and invited the Principal Planning Officer to respond to any concerns raised.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the existing trees where not native and were known to create foundation issues due to the roots, stating Holly would be a good replacement which was a native species, would continue to screen residence while providing food for animals in the winter months.

 

The Locum Planning Lawyer advised the Agent for his client to consider some form of Planning Obligation to cover the retention of trees rather than for that issue to be dealt with as a planning condition.

 

The Agent gave assurance on the public record that a Planning Obligation was not necessary because the Applicant would not go down the route of an application to vary or strike out a relevant planning condition as to the trees.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·         Councillor Ian Mantle

·         Councillor Martin Prescott

·         Councillor Ruth Brown

·         Councillor Clare Billing

·         Councillor Val Bryant

·         Councillor Louise Peace

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·         Queried whether a condition should be included to ensure the trees were retained.

·         If trees were to be retained it should be for all residents, not just the objector.

·         Leylandii were not a native tree species, it would be better for a native tree species to be used as screening.

·         Unfortunately, Leylandii trees were used for screening in the past due to the rate in which they developed, which was also problematic.

·         St Albans was a considerable distance for existing residents to be relocated especially if family wished to visit them daily.

·         The design was compelling, and the energy efficiency seemed to be good.

·         There were no planning reasons to reject the application even if the aesthetic design was not desirable.

·         A pointed roof would be preferable to a flat one.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 24/02758/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. There was a break in proceedings following this item and the meeting reconvened at 20:38