Agenda item

External and internal alterations/refurbishments of the historic part of a 24 bed residential care home. Demolition of the recent extensions to the rear, and construction of a Care Quality Commission (CQC) compliant replacement extension, increasing capacity to 30 beds and alteration to existing access. Demolition of 2 ancillary buildings and associated landscape works.

Cllr Hewitt and Cllr Jeans left the meeting.

Public Participation

Mr Fuller spoke in Objection to the application

Matthew Airey spoke in Support of the application

Matthew Holmes spoke in Support of the application

Jonathan Ross spoke in Support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer Becky Jones introduced the report for external and internal alterations/refurbishments of the historic part of a 24 bed residential care home. Demolition of the recent extensions to the rear, and construction of a Care Quality Commission (CQC) compliant replacement extension, increasing the capacity to 30 beds and alteration to existing access. Demolition of 2 ancillary buildings and associated landscape works. The application was  recommended for refusal.

The Officer noted that the proposed site plans had been amended since publication of the agenda, as detailed in the late correspondance circulated at the meeting. As a result the Conservation Officer had removed a reason for refusal. He had also asked for the scale and amenity to be added to the reasons for refusal.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was

Clarified that the recommended reasons for refusal had been edited since the report was published.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The Division Member Cllr Sven Hocking then spoke in support of the application. Noting that with regards to conservation and heritage, the front of the property did have character, however he felt that the rest of the building dids not, adding that there was a need to bring the facility up to the required standards.

He aknowledged that Mr Fuller would have a large development at the rear of his property and that would need to be addressed, however the benefits outweighed the negatives, so he supported the application. He would expect the applicant to work with the residents to mitigate the negatives to their properties.

Cllr Hocking moved the motion of approval this was seconded by Cllr Smale.

A debate followed where the key issues raised included that the Applicant  Wessex Care were a major provider in care for the elderly in the area, however it was a matter of balance, to consider the local need for the nursing provision over the loss of the protection to the building and limiting the impact on  neighbouring properties.

The Conservation Officer had raised some concerns on the effects the proposed development would have on the listed building. The residents living at the property next door had raised concerns on the impact of the development would have on them. 

The scale of the proposed building was too big and would impact on those around it.

The Committee voted on the motion of approval, this motion was not carried.

The Chairman then moved the motion of Refusal, for application 17/11250/FUL, this was seconded by Cllr Britton.

Resolved

That application 17/11250/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The development seeks to remove modern extensions and to extend and alter a Grade II listed building comprising a 24 bed nursing home. The proposed extension and alterations would add six new bedrooms and other facilities, to create a modern, 30 bed nursing home facility. The listed building, despite its relatively poor quality extensions, is pre-eminent on the site and the present extensions are very much secondary and partially obscured from view from Manor Farm Road. The proposed extension is a substantial three-storeyed cranked range occupying a footprint that is significantly disproportionate to its host.

Whilst there are some elements of heritage gain within the proposals (such as the proposed stairs to the front door) and neutrality by removing the poor quality modern extensions and refurbishment works to the original building, the alterations to the historic core of the listed building (such as removal of masonry walls to the rear of room 3 and the kitchen) appear to the result in the loss of historic fabric and are inadequately justified in public benefit terms as required by NPPF para 134.

Therefore, the proposed extension, by virtue of its overall design, height and

footprint, would cause “substantial” harm to the character and setting of the listed building, contrary to section 16 and 66 of The 1990 Act and paragraph 133 of the NPPF and the aims of Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 58; and alterations to the historic core of the listed building would cause “less than substantial” harm and are inadequately justified in public benefit terms, contrary to NPPF paragraph 134.

2. The site lies adjacent to No 10 Westbourne Close, Milford Grove and White Lodge. The proposed 3 storey extension to the listed building, by virtue of its design, scale, massing and proximity to boundaries would result in an unacceptable level of actual and perceived overlooking towards neighbouring residential properties, is likely to give rise to unwanted light intrusion and would appear unduly dominant, to the detriment of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 (vii) and paragraphs 9, 56 and 64 of the NPPF.

The Chairman then moved the motion of Refusal for application 17/11681/LBC, this was seconded by Cllr Britton.

Resolved

That application 17/11681/LBC be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The development seeks to remove modern extensions and to extend and alter a Grade II listed building comprising a 24 bed nursing home. The proposed extension and alterations would add six new bedrooms and other facilities, to create a modern, 30 bed nursing home facility. The listed building, despite its relatively poor quality extensions, is pre-eminent on the site and the present extensions are very much secondary and partially obscured from view from Manor Farm Road. The proposed extension is a substantial three- storeyed cranked range occupying a footprint that is significantly disproportionate to its host.

Whilst there are some elements of heritage gain within the proposals (such as the proposed stairs to the front door) and neutrality by removing the poor quality modern extensions and refurbishment works to the original building, the alterations to the historic core of the listed building (such as removal of masonry walls to the rear of room 3 and the kitchen) appear to the result in the loss of historic fabric and are inadequately justified in public benefit terms as required by NPPF para 134.

Therefore, the proposed extension, by virtue of its overall design, height and

footprint, would cause “substantial” harm to the character and setting of the listed building, contrary to section 16 and 66 of The 1990 Act and paragraph 133 of the NPPF and the aims of Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 58; and alterations to the historic core of the listed building would cause “less than substantial” harm and are inadequately justified in public benefit terms, contrary to NPPF paragraph 134.