Agenda item

Councillor Lesley Alexander did not attend from the beginning of this item (including Public Forum Statements relating to it) and therefore in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, she was not permitted to participate in the debate or vote on it.

It was noted that this item had been deferred from 29^th May 2020 meeting pending a further report as Councillors were minded to refuse this application.

Among the areas of concern raised by Members at the meeting were: traffic and parking; an over concentration of Care Homes in the area affecting the mixed and balanced community; and the rationale for considering the site as being near to shops and services due to the nature and limited mobility of the likely residents.

The case officer introduced the report and made the following comments:

·       A further review of the applicant’s parking survey (2019) had been conducted and a further site visit made. On the basis that the survey identified parking spaces that were unavailable (dropped kerbs), and that a vast number of representations including photos had been made demonstrating the parking challenges of the area, officers had revised their recommendation and considered that the scheme should be refused.

·       Officers assessed the impact that the change of use would have on the mix and balance of the local community, however they recommended to Members that there would not be an overconcentration of such uses.

·       It was also noted that enabling access to shops and services by staff was important as well as visitors and this increased parking could also have an impact on the site.

Officers Response to Questions By Councillors

·       Policy did not explicitly define at what point an overconcentration of one particular type of use (such as a care home) in a particular street or area became unacceptable. Councillors should undertake a careful assessment against the criteria of Policy DM2, which defines some of the issues which could be considered to demonstrate such a concentration.

•     The assessment in the report considered the uses of each of the buildings on the streets. Whilst there may be higher level of occupation for care homes, compared to residential homes, there was no data available for the occupancy of every single property. At the census level every person in Redland and the Manor Park LSOA could be accounted for but these figures were dated to 2011 and so out of date and covered a much larger area than just Belvedere Road.

•     The level of disturbance was assessed by BCC’s environmental health officer and was made on the basis of registered complaints. As no complaints were registered it was difficult to define whether there was an impact in terms of noise and disturbance.

•     Whilst representations to councillors could be considered by the Committee, officers were not able to give them the same weight as if they were recorded complaints

•     At appeal, objectors would be able to raise with the Inspector all issues that they deemed to merit refusal, even if these were not specifically referred to in the Committee’s reasons for refusing an application. The officers had indicated in the report those issues where they believed a reason for refusal could be made whilst minimising the risk of  an award of costs against the  Council.

·       Complaints to both the police and pollution control would be assessed. However, it should be borne in mind that a resident might not complain so readily about a business, particularly if it were a care home, where noise might be a frequent occurrence arising from its normal activities

Councillor Debate

·       The application should be refused both on parking and on the impact on residential amenity

•     The smaller than expected numbers of formal complaints may be because residents were reluctant to complain about something so sensitive as a dementia care home.

•     The balance between residential care home occupants and other residents was already considered to be about 50/50 and therefore not balanced

•     The application should be refused both on parking grounds and the existing overconcentration of residential care homes in the area

•     The proposed increase in staff was not that significant. There were narrow roads in many other parts of the area. The application should be approved

•     The current policy recommended that care homes should be built on the outskirts of built up areas to prevent parking issues and disturbance. This area was also near the Downs Resident Parking scheme which resulted in greater than normal parking and disturbance for a residential area

•     In addition to concerns about parking, there was an imbalance in the number of care homes in the area, leading to harm to residential amenity. The application should also be refused on the grounds of Policy DM2

Councillor Harriet Bradley moved, seconded by Councillor Mike Davies and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (8 for, 1 against, 1 not voting as indicated above) – that the application is refused on the following basis:

The proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in demand for parking, leading to inappropriate on-street parking activities, safety concerns and the obstruction of access to private driveways. This would be contrary to Policy BCS10 (Transport and Access Improvements), Policy DM2 (Residential Sub-divisions, Shared and Specialist Housing) and Policy DM23 (Transport Development Management).

The proposed development would result in an overconcentration of residential institutions on Belvedere Road, which would lead to harm to the mix, balance and inclusivity of the community, contrary to Policy BCS18 (Housing Type) and reduce the choice of homes in the area by changing the housing mix contrary to Policy DM2 (Residential Sub-divisions, Shared and Specialist Housing).

The proposed development would result in a harmful concentration of shared housing / care homes on Belvedere Road, worsening the existing harmful conditions listed within point (i) of Policy DM2 (Residential Sub-divisions, Shared and Specialist Housing), including excessive noise and disturbance and inadequate storage of recycling/refuse.