Agenda item

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader, introduced the application which sought approval for the partial demolition of the existing southern wing and construction of a part two-storey and part three-storey extension to an existing care home to provide 31 new bedrooms, resulting in a total of 60 bedrooms on the site and 50 car parking spaces. He noted that the design had been altered during the course of the application to address officers’ concerns. The design of the scheme took advantage of the change in levels through the site and made good use of the space. There is no impact on the settings of Great Haywards Farm and Great Haywards Barn, which are both Grade Two listed, because of intervening buildings between the site of the planning application and the listed buildings.

He added that matters pertaining to access were considered on page 34 of the committee report. There are currently 29 parking spaces and the proposal will result in 50 spaces on the site, including disabled spaces and Electric Car (EV) Charging Points. He pointed Members' attention to the fact that the Highways Authority had raised no objection and that there would not be any significant impact on the Highway Network from the proposal. In terms of highway safety, there were no grounds to reject the application. He highlighted a key issue was neighbouring amenities (discussed on page 35 of the report). He pointed Members to policy DP26 and that there would not be significant. harm caused to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring flats. Regarding drainage, he confirmed that there are no objections from Southern Water or the Local Flood Authority or the Council’s Drainage Engineer. The Council's ecological consultant has also raised no objection. Though some concerns had been raised about the impact on trees on the southern boundary of the site, the Tree Officer had raised no objections and the proposed extension was outside the root protection area of protected trees.

The Planning Applications Team Leader concluded that he believed there would be clear benefits from the scheme including improvements to the facilities in the site, the provision of the additional bedrooms, for which there is  a clear need with the aging population as well as the economic benefits, with a further 9 staff being employed. He recommended that the Members consider it for approval.

Lyndsey Ratcliffe, a local resident spoke against the application.

Andrew Wilson, local resident spoke against the application. 

Ozkan Turgutlu, local resident spoke against the application.

Huw James, agent for the application, spoke in favour of the application.

Tracy Evans, Chief Executive of Sussex Housing & Care, spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr De Mierre, Ward Member, spoke against the application, citing concerns about the height of the extension, which she felt would impinge on neighbouring properties, as well as potential damage of the trees during the period of construction and access to the site.

Cllr Jim Knight, Ward Member, spoke against the application. He believed the proposed elevations would dominate the landscape and were out of keeping with the area, along with loss of privacy for existing residents.

A Member expressed support for the additional opportunities and employment the extended building could offer, though he expressed concerns with the topography and the height of the building.

A Member queried if the increased number of beds would lead to an increase in the number of visitors and queried the number of parking spaces provided. Another Member was concerned about traffic to the site. Another Member indicated that he could not see any substantial reasons to refuse the application. One Member had concerns with the fact the extension would double the size of the building, and whether this still complies with DP26 in terms of creating a sense of place while addressing the character and scale of surrounding buildings and landscape. He also noted DP41 regarding flood risk and drainage as he had concerns over whether the extension deals with the issue of lack of drainage on site.

Addressing concerns expressed by Members, the Planning Applications Team Leader acknowledged that Policy E9 of Neighbourhood Plan covers how proposals sit in their context and DP26 of the District Plan is a more up to date policy with similar aims. He noted that it was down to planning judgement to determine if it meets the criteria in these two policies. He advised that there had been extensive negotiation on the design and that the Urban Designer is now satisfied that the proposed elevations now fit comfortably within the site. With regards to drainage he highlighted that the Council's Drainage Officer had not expressed any objection to the plans and was content with the proposals to drain the site, noting that the technical details can be dealt with by planning condition. Following concerns from residents about the impact on neighbouring properties, he didn't believe that the proposal would have an adverse impact in terms of a loss of light to the properties to the south because of their distance from the proposed extension and the fact that the extension was to the north of the neighbouring houses at Ferny Croft.

Another Member noted there was a growing need for nursing homes in the area and expressed the view that there was sufficient space between the site and the neighbouring properties.

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application as detailed in the Officer Recommendation as amended by the Agenda Update Sheet. This was proposed by the Vice-Chairman and seconded by Cllr MacNaughton. A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the application was approved with 7 votes in favour and 3 against.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions listed at Appendix A.

(Cllr Coe-Gunnel White left the meeting at 4:15pm.)