Agenda item

Demolition of the existing care home with replacement building providing 9 bedrooms on lower ground floor, 9 bedrooms on ground floor and 14 bedrooms on first floor, all with auxiliary space and together with the existing home would provide 52 bedrooms total and associated works (Resubmission of PL/2021/10237).

Public Participation

• Mr Eric Anderson, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.
• Ms Claire Sweeney, together with the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
• Ms Melissa Magee, together with the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
• Mr Ashley Jones, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that the Committee refused the application for the demolition of the existing care home with replacement building providing 9 bedrooms on the lower ground floor, 9 bedrooms on the ground floor, and 14 bedrooms on the first floor, all with auxiliary space which together with the existing home would provide 52 bedrooms total and associated works. It was confirmed that this was the resubmission of application PL/2021/10237.

The background to the application was detailed, including the previous referral to the Committee on 18 January 2023 which resulted in a refusal against officer recommendations, and subsequent dismissed appeal. Furthermore, it was clarified that when considering the site’s planning history, the subsequent amendments to the proposal, and in the context of the applicant’s assertion that the long-term viability of the care home would be threatened in the event of the proposal not securing planning permission, officers had been directed by the Corporate Director for Place to bring the application back to the Committee for determination. 

Key material considerations were identified including the principle of development; the scale and design of the proposal and its impact on street scene; impacts on neighbouring amenity; impacts on non-designated heritage assets; and drainage, ecological, and highway impacts.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. Clarity was sought on how the recent proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) could impact any Planning Inspector’s decisions at future appeals, specifically in the context of the Housing Land Supply if Members were minded to refuse the application in line with officer recommendations, and when considering the previous dismissed appeal. Officers reiterated that the reforms were proposals only with little to no weight to be attached and that the proposed changes would be available for public consultation until 24 September 2024. However, if the proposed alterations to the Housing Land Supply were to be confirmed, the position in terms of planning balance would not have materially changed from the context in which the previous appeal decision was decided as the perceived harm to No. 6 Littlebrook outweighed the weight given to Wiltshire Council’s Housing Land Supply position, thus leading to minimal ramifications.

The named public speakers as detailed above then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee.

Councillor Trevor Carbin, as the Local Unitary Member, then spoke to the application and thanked officers for their hard work and effort on the current proposal and previous iterations.

A debate then followed where Members acknowledged the concerns raised by neighbouring residents and the impact that the alterations to the footprint and massing of the proposal would have on these residents. However, the mitigations submitted by the applicants were noted alongside the ageing population of Wiltshire, the importance of planning for the care of the elderly within their local communities, and the need for care home places.

Members further discussed the previous dismissed appeal and the Inspector’s judgement that the substantive and demonstrable harm to the amenity of the residents at No. 6 Littlebrook outweighed the benefits of the scheme despite the residents of No. 6 Littlebrook raising no objections.

At the conclusion of the debate, Councillor Trevor Carbin moved to refuse the application in line with officer recommendations which was seconded by Councillor Jonathon Seed. Following a vote on the motion, it was:

Resolved:

The Committee REFUSED the application for the following grounds:

The proposed development by virtue of its 3-storey structure and resultant size, massing and proximity to the boundary with No 6 Littlebrook would have an unacceptable overbearing effect upon the outlook from the modest external amenity space to the side of the aforesaid neighbouring property.

Furthermore, the use of clear glazing in bedrooms 49 and 50 due to their elevated position in close proximity to the boundary with No 6 Littlebrook would cause direct overlooking of their amenity spaces causing harm to their privacy.

The proposal is therefore in conflict with adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and NPPF paragraphs 131 and 135.