Meeting documents

Proposal: Demolition of existing care home and development of extra care units with communal facilities.

The Area Lead presented the application as detailed in the agenda, and drew members attention to the status of a permissive path leading from the site into West Street. He provided members with several updates including:

·         Reference to aspects of an appeal on a neighbouring site.

·         Three further letters of objection had been received and these predominantly raised issues already mentioned in the report.

·         His officer conclusions regarding C2 and C3 usage were challenged, and he explained that early in the application process he had accepted that usage was C2.

·         A letter referring to applications for older people housing was becoming too dominant in the town.

He explained to members the difference in parking standards required for C2 and C3 usage. The business model put forward by the applicants showed that residents in the apartments would be required to purchase a care package and on that basis it was felt more akin to C2 usage. The majority of residents were envisaged to be non-car users but some might, hence the parking provision. He acknowledged that the differences between C2 and C3 planning use classes were ‘blurred’. It was noted that officers had worked with the applicant to overcome objections from the last application. The visual impact would not be considerably different from the current building, and so the proposal was felt to be acceptable.

Mr D Harrison, spokesperson for Somerton Town Council, noted that the town council recognised use of the same site for a care home or other development was in principle, acceptable. They did not support the application due to insufficient amenity space, concern about the narrowness of Pesters Lane and parking, the size of development was still thought to be too bulky, the footprint of the proposal is larger than the existing development, concern that proposed on-site parking is too limited for C3 usage, and there being an unacceptable confusion as to whether C2 or C3 usage is envisaged.

Members were then addressed by Mr M Smith, Mr B Yates, Ms J Hurley, Ms G Mattingley and Mrs P Short in objection to the application, their comments included:

·         As apartments have kitchens and own front doors, the proposal is residential.

·         The footpath from the site to West Street is not a public right of way and so people will have to go via Pesters Lane

·         It’s too big, will be a blot on the landscape, it’s residential and not enough parking

·         Feel site can in reality only provide 19 parking spaces.

·         What is so different with this revised application from the original?

·         Concern about use class, how would a care need and type be defined, and how would entitlement to a car space be determined?

·         The Alder Tree must be protected, and an adjacent Cherry tree could be retained. Landscaping should be considered in conjunction with the town council

·         Another care home in this dense area just outside a conservation area is out of balance in Somerton

·         A community only works with a balance of population

·         Feel it’s over development, insufficient parking and the lack of garden will be soul-destroying for residents

·         Does not meet local needs and will harm Somerton

Mr J Sneddon, agent, commented that the proposal was a care home. There would be a care team on site at all times, with a communal restaurant and communal activities. Residents would be required to undergo a care assessment and pay a service charge for care. The proposal was aimed at people who needed care but wished to retain some independence.

Ward member, Councillor Dean Ruddle, commented that whilst he was of the opinion there was a need for such a proposal he felt this application would damage the local environment. He was concerned by the path not being an actual Right of Way, as using Pesters Lane would be dangerous for buggies. The design indicated the finish to be render with some stone, but this would not be in keeping with buildings in the nearby conservation area.

Ward member, Councillor Stephen Page, noted the site was a suitable location but with a modified plan. He was concerned about pedestrian safety, the size of the proposal, confusion regarding the classification of C2/C3 use, parking and the design not being in keeping with the locality. Listening to comments he felt the proposal was about 25% too big.

During the ensuing discussing, comments raised by members included:

·         Scale is very large

·         Don’t think parking is adequate and lack of amenity space is a concern

·         Residents need amenity space – this proposal will isolate the elderly

·         Acknowledge there is a need for this type of facility, and there is an ageing population

·         Proposed building will be dominant, and not in keeping with the locality

·         People want care but don’t necessarily want to be in care homes

·         Need this type of accommodation but in a different, more in keeping, proposal

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to refuse the application on the grounds of over development, size, scale and the visual impact on Somerton.

In response to comments made, the Area Lead noted that the formal wording for the refusal could be based on the previous refusal. For clarification he detailed the wording, to which members agreed.

The proposal to refuse the application, for the reason as detailed by the Area Lead, was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous)