Agenda item

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the application seeking full planning permission for the erection of a part two, part three and part four storey building comprising 66 extra care apartments with a community hub, guest suite and staff facilities together with 15 extra care cottages, pavilion, parking and access to form a Continuing Care Retirement Community following the demolition of the existing care home.

The Team Leader confirmed that Committee Members had received the Agenda Update Sheet which detailed clarifications regarding cycle and mobility scooter storage, along with two additional conditions regarding noise and the times for refuse collection.

The Team Leader drew Members’ attention to the site’s location, as the development plan for this part of Mid Sussex consists of the District Plan (DP) and Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan (HHNP). The site is within the built-up area of Haywards Heath, and the existing layout has a care home at the northern end of the site and a car park on the side. The proposal was to demolish all buildings on-site and redevelop the site. The two main wings of the apartment building will be linked by a  building that appears as a single storey structure when viewed from the north and two storeys when viewed from the south.As highlighted in the report, the application takes advantage of the falling levels of the site. The existing boundary planting would be retained and enhanced.

The Team Leader discussed the issue of affordable housing, detailed on page 47 of the report, and officers were of the view that there wasn't a need for affordable housing provision as the proposal is C2 instead of C3. He also referred to plans for drainage, which would go from the site to the southeast. It was considered that the site can be satisfactorily drained, with no objections to the scheme from the Council's Drainage Engineer or Southern Water. He expressed the view that the application offers the best use of the site,  there was no adverse impact on the landscape and is located within the built-up area, with no significant harm to neighbouring amenities, as indicated on page 41 of the report.

There would be provision for car parking around the property, with 80 spaces: with 64 on the surface, the remaining 16 in the under-croft area. He added that there should be no significant adverse impact on the adjoining properties from vehicle movements and car parking arising from the proposed access road and car parking spaces. There is also no objection from the Highways Authority to the car parking and access arrangements.

The Team Leader advised that the existing building was not listed and was not of listable quality. He outlined the Planning Officers view that the existing building can be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset. He outlined that in the Planning Officers view, in the balanced judgement required under paragraph 197 of the NPPF, the benefits of the scheme outweighed the loss of the non-designated heritage asset.

He concluded that the proposal complied with the Development Plan when read as a whole, with the benefits of the scheme overriding the loss of existing building on the site. He noted that there were no technical objections to the scheme to the scheme from the Highway Authority, Ecological Consultant or Drainage Engineer. He advised that the Planning Officer considered this to be a well-designed scheme that would provide good quality accommodation in a sustainable location.

Cllr Mike Pulfer spoke in favour of the application.

John Montgomery spoke in favour of the application.

A Member thanked the Planning Team Leader for his work and believed the design was quite innovative. Another Member queried the need for the type of facility in the area noting that in terms of Hurst Place, some of the facilities there had been on the market for a long time. He expressed concern about the loss of old properties, even if they are not listed buildings. The Planning Team Leader replied by highlighting that the Neighbourhood Plan had allocated the site for approximately 20extra 20 care bungalows. He also referred Members to Government advice which stated that the need to provide housing for older people is critical and that the additional housing was aligned with the Government’s agenda for more elderly persons’ accommodation. 

A Member, while being generally in favour, wanted to receive more extensive visual details of the design. He expressed disappointment that the footprint of the existing building in comparison to the footprint of the proposal had not been adequately pointed out in the recent site visit. Another Member welcomed the changes to the site, citing the usage of solar panels, but expressed concerns about awareness of flooding and the safeguarding of trees. The Chairman noted the Members' suggestions but emphasised that the proposal needed to be considered as it had been presented.

The Chairman took Members to a named vote on the recommendations outlined in the report, and the amendments as detailed on the Agenda Update Sheet.  This was proposed by Cllr Forbes and seconded by Cllr Jackson and unanimously approved. 

RESOLVED

That subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 planning obligation securing the necessary financial contributions towards infrastructure as set out in the Assessment section, the occupation of the building and care package, car club and minibus provision, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A and the Agenda Update sheet.