Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of all the existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide a new nursing and convalescence home of 70 beds with support facilities, a well-being and physiotherapy centre and associated works.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition of all the existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide a new nursing and convalescence home of 70 beds with support facilities, a wellbeing and physiotherapy centre and associated works.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a question about the distance between buildings, the applicant team drew attention to the site location plan which showed the footprints of the existing and proposed buildings. It was explained that there had been an attempt to move the boundaries away from neighbouring properties and sensitive areas and some other areas where the footprint had been extended.

·         It was noted that the site previously accommodated a 42 bed residential care home and that the proposal would be a different business model for short term stays after hospital treatment. The Committee enquired how this would meet Policy DM15, which preserved specialist housing. The Head of Development Management noted that the previous and proposed uses concerned two different types of specialist housing and that this would need to be assessed and weighed to determine whether the proposal was acceptable.

·         Attention was drawn to the comments of the Quality Review Panel (QRP). It was noted that the site was located near a row of Georgian town houses and it was queried whether the current utilitarian design had the right architectural quality for the area. Further design work? The applicant team noted that they had rigorously assessed the site and its context in planning, architectural, and heritage terms over the last year. It was added that views had been collected from residents and local amenity groups and the applicant team considered that the current proposal had an appropriate design context for the area. It was also noted that officers and the QRP also considered the design to be appropriate but that the applicant would continue to engage on the progression of the design.

·         Some concerns were expressed that the North Hill frontage was not visually attractive or complementary to the Georgian terrace. It was also enquired how demolition was justified. The Head of Development Management explained that the applicant would need to show that they could meet the requirements for specialist housing and that the replacement building would be equal to or better than the existing building in terms of enhancing the conservation area. The applicant team added that they had considered retaining and repurposing the building but that it was not practical or financially viable.

·         It was noted that the QRP had criticised the location of the restaurant in the basement. The applicant team explained that the restaurant would now be located on the ground floor and would be overlooking the rear garden.

·         It was confirmed that 10 rooms would be north facing which constituted a small number of the total rooms.

·         The Committee noted that this application was quite different to a standard planning application and requested that the final report contained additional information about the specific considerations for this type of decision, including information about affordable provision and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions.

·         It was noted that there were a number of landmarks near to the site, including Grade II Listed and locally listed buildings. The Committee requested that the images for the final application included these details so that they could be seen in context to the proposals.

·         It was noted that the QRP had referred to the climate emergency. It was commented that this was a large site which could have a significant benefit or detriment and it was requested that as much detail as possible was provided in the application. The applicant team explained that they had appointed a sustainability and renewable energy consultant who had already been in contact with the council’s climate officer and agreed a scope of works and information requirements to support the application.

·         In response to a question about the description of the development as ‘special needs housing’, the applicant team stated that this would be Class C2 residential use. It was explained that Policy DM15 was supportive of special needs accommodation and that the proposal would meet a special need for residential accommodation. It was added that, as part of the council’s policy, there were sub-criteria which indicated the type of facilities that would be relevant and which would be applicable in this case; this included the level of supervision, management, and care/ support.

·         Cllr Peacock noted that the applicant team should use the phrase ‘older person’ rather than ‘elderly’.

·         It was clarified that each floor of the building would have a communal area. It was noted that all rooms would have en suite facilities. It was added that the previous rooms were approximately 10sqm and that the new rooms would all be in excess of 20sqm.

·         It was enquired whether the windowless room shown on the plan would be for staff and whether they would be sleeping in this room. The applicant team noted that this was planned to be a state of the art facility and that the area mentioned would possibly be a rest area for staff; it was added that the internal configuration might still change and that the rest area might move upstairs.

·         The applicant team noted that the estimated cost of staying at the facility would be £300 per night.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.

At 9.20pm, the Committee agreed a short adjournment; the meeting resumed at 9.25pm.