Agenda item

Hybrid planning application for two 80 bed care homes with landscaping and associated works (full application), and up to 50 dwellings with access (outline application) (resubmission of 20/01175/FULMAJ

The application was brought before members of the committee for determination at the request of Councillor Julie Robinson. A previous application had also been considered by the committee which members deferred on the 7April 2021 and then refused on the 7 July 2021. Additionally, the development of the site formed part of an allocated site in the Wyre Local Plan, and was of strategic importance and part of the proposal included a use which did not fall within the relevant allocation policy.

A site visit occurred to enable Members to understand the proposal beyond the plans and the photos taken by the Case Officer.

An update sheet with additional information was published on the Council’s website, this information only having become available after the original agenda had been published. The committee considered the update sheet which contained an amended landscaping and hedgerow plan and amendments to conditions, including condition 28 on landscaping.

Stalmine Parish Councillor Alan Morton spoke in objection to the application.

Wyre Borough Councillor for Hambleton and Stalmine, Julie Robinson, spoke in objection to the application.

County Councillor for Thornton and Hambleton, John Shedwick, spoke in objection to the application.

Paul Sedgwick, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Members admitted that they were generally happier with this application than the previous applications, however they were still concerned with the height and mass of the buildings, parking issues and the occupancy numbers of the development. Members were also mindful that the applicant had an appeal pending against the previous refusal, and whether approval of the current application would result in that appeal being withdrawn.

Members discussed what they could consider given this was a new application and queried whether the previous application that had been refused had included highways and parking as a refusal reason, and asked for this to be checked in the minutes. The Senior Planning Officer reminded members of the refusal reason, which had been on the massing and height and impact on the street scene, and the Assistant Democratic Services Officer pointed out to members that though highways and parking had not been included in the refusal reason, their concerns on these issues had been minuted.

The Planning Development Manager responded to concerns raised by members. She explained to members that the footprint of the building had not changed, just the configuration and the height of the buildings. She said to members that the level of the land was higher on the back of the site, and these levels would generally be lowered.

She responded to comments on car parking, which in this application had proposed an increased amount of spaces, and clarified to members on the site allocation capacity and what the application equated to for the Council’s housing supply.

She explained to members that whilst this application was a new application and so was to be assessed on its own merits, the fact that members did not refuse the previous application on certain matters was material to any decision on this application where there were no changes on those matters. She strongly advised that members did not include issues about the principle of development   in a refusal reason as this had not changed since the previous application.

 Additionally, she clarified to members that the proposal did indicate that the bedrooms would be single occupancy and the parking standards have been looked at on that basis, and there had been no objections by the leading Highways Authority on this.

She also explained to members that though they had previously raised concerns about highway capacity, totality of development and on-site parking, these concerns did not amount to a refusal reason on the original application, and stated that as these matters had not changed and the proposed parking was an improvement, members were strongly advised not to include concerns on highways and parking in a refusal reason.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Cllr Le Marinel and seconded by Cllr Orme that the application be refused contrary to the recommendation for the following reason:

1.    The proposal, by reason of the scale and massing and height of the buildings, would be overbearing in the landscape, resulting in an unacceptable impact on visual amenity. This would be contrary to policies SP2, CDMP3 and SA1/7 of the Wyre Local Plan (2011-31) and the NPPF.