Issue - meetings

To consider an application for the partial demolition and redevelopment of an existing building to retirement living accommodation, 45no. retirement apartments and 11no. retirement cottages with communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

That planning application 2023/2369/FULbe REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the recommendation was to refuse but the Parish Council had supported the application.

The application related to a site in Street which has a number of planning constraints.

The Parish Council had supported the application. However, there were objections from the Highways Development Officer, Nutrient neutrality, Heritage Conservation and the Tree Officer.

The Officer’s Report concluded that overall, the harms associated with the development were concluded to be significant and demonstrable. Despite pre application discussions, the applicant had disregarded the majority of the Officer advice offered. The applicant had failed to respond to consultee issues raised during the lifetime of the application, or to work positively and proactively with the Local Planning Authority to deliver an acceptable scheme at this site. The application was therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s Report.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

The first speaker objected to the proposal and made the following points:

• She was one of 7 neighbours that would be overlooked by the retirement building and was speaking on behalf of them all.
• They did not have an issue with the site being developed, but they had concerns with what was proposed and how it would be built.
• Overlooking was a main concern as the tallest part of the development would be at the back of their properties and their gardens would all be overlooked.
• The demolition of the existing buildings would cause noise, dust and vibration for many months.
• The removal of trees will mean there will be a clear line of site to the new building.
• If the issues can be resolved, would support re-development as currently it is a magnate for anti-social behaviour.

The next speaker supported the proposal and made the following points:

• He was the director of the company that owns the Crispin Centre which was acquired by them in 2022.
• It was already dilapidated and the tenants moved out. Subsequently, it was closed.
• Residents of Street regard the redevelopment of the site as a top priority.
• It is a complex and challenging brownfield site which needs a large investment to bring it back into use.
• The homes would provide much needed retirement properties in a sustainable location.
• If not approved, the site will likely remain dilapidated as there are no other competing proposals on the table.

The representative of Street Parish Council was the next to speak. He said the Parish Council supported the application, stating it was an ugly monstrosity which would only decline further if the application was not approved by Members. In addition, the developer would repair three flats located above some High Street shops, bringing them back into use as low-cost housing. Overflow car parking would be available less than a quarter of a mile away.

The Divisional Members were then invited to speak. Their comments included the following:

• There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182