Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Shelton on behalf the applicant. Mr Shelton stated that the applicant is pleased to receive the support of the Planning Team in respect of this application for a new 56-bed care home and accept all the pre-commencement conditions therein. He made the point that approval for a 56-bedroomed care home on the site has already been given under F/YR21/0284/F and this application changes the vehicular access from Cawood Close to Peterhouse Crescent, with the building being otherwise identical in footprint, scale, location and features.

Mr Shelton stated that this new application allows direct access into the care home from Peterhouse Crescent in contrast with the right of way access that they have over the land to the entrance of the site from Cawood Close, with the revision giving them full authority and rights over the entrance to the site ensuring that the boundary, entrance and roadway outside the home remain safe and free from disruption. He made the point that they had limited right over the entrance to Cawood Close and Peterhouse Crescent entrance will allow them to monitor the safety and well-being of neighbours and residents at all times.

Mr Shelton explained that pre-application advice was sought from the Council and the Highway Authority prior to submission of the application in December 2021, with the new entrance providing a more welcoming space with increased visibility and provides easier access to public transport links on Station Road. He stated that the proposed care home replaces the previous unsightly portal frame asbestos clad building already demolished and whilst trees will be removed as part of the preliminary works under the previous permission, there will be an ecological assessment to ensure that there is a bio-diversity net gain to the site once complete.

Mr Shelton stated that the scheme has received positive comments from all statutory consultees and throughout the application they have updated the design to reflect any comments made by each of the parties including the local drainage board, Middle Level, as well as Anglian Water and the Local Flood Authority. He expressed the opinion that they have attempted to pre-empt issues that neighbours of Peterhouse Crescent would raise and during the application have duly responded to the collective concerns, including:

·       ‘risk of devaluing neighbouring properties’. He does not believe the modern contemporary design of the new care home will devalue neighbouring properties and feels the opposite will occur with removal of the previous cladded warehouse.

·       ‘increased disruption from construction traffic’. He stated that it is their intention to utilise the rights of way they have over the Cawood Close entrance as its construction entrance for all activities other than a few activities that affect the Peterhouse Crescent boundary, therefore, mitigating any nuisance.

·       ‘there is insufficient parking and there will be an increase in traffic’. He referred to the transport statement provided in the application, which concludes an insignificant impact on Peterhouse Crescent from the care home activities, but he does recognise neighbours’ concerns. He stated that the new entrance will allow them to have far greater authority over the access and to deal with any parking and traffic infringements that may very occasionally occur, with the building and car park being under 24/7 CCTV surveillance and the management and maintenance team will ensure the neighbours concerns are addressed in the event they are ever raised. He made the point that number of car parking spaces now available for staff and visitors is far greater than would be typically expected of a care home.

·       ‘security at Cawood Close’. He reiterated that the site will have 24/7 CCTV covering the boundary and to alleviate this concern they will ensure the previous entrance is covered by the security system, with the CCTV layout to be agreed with planning officers and registered with the Police prior to completion.

·       ‘greater impact on local facilities’. He made the point that a care home in its nature provides care for the local residents and it is their intention to provide the town with a facility where its elderly residents are taken care of, and in doing so, reduce the likelihood of trips to the surgeries.

Mr Shelton expressed the opinion that the new entrance at Peterhouse Crescent will increase likelihood of its use by local residents and staff when travelling to the home by foot or cycle as the distance is significantly shorter than the previous route and the management team will promote commuting to work by walking or cycling aided by keeping the existing pedestrian entrance at the north-west of the site. He feels the care home itself presents a valuable opportunity for employment in the town with varying job opportunities available across the care, management, catering and maintenance teams, with it being their intention to work closely with the immediate and wider town to ensure that the services the care home can provide are utilised not only by its residents but by their families and friends.

Mr Shelton believes that the new care home offers March the opportunity for its elderly residents to be cared for in a modern, warm and caring environment that is reflected by the design and construction of a state of the art facility run by local professionals who have investment in the town.

Members asked questions of Mr Shelton as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked for assurances that when this development starts and is constructed that vehicles delivering materials will not be permanently parked on Peterhouse Crescent, Cawood Close or even Elm Road. Mr Shelton responded that he has reached out to the football club on Estover Road and is trying to arrange parking for construction traffic there, with deliveries to be made via Cawood Close at all times apart from the occasional one via Peterhouse Crescent. Councillor Mrs French stated that she hopes this is the case as they have just started building 118 homes in Wisbech Road and there have been 10 lorries on Wisbech Road causing havoc over the last few days and she would hate this to happen for the residents who live in Peterhouse Crescent and Cawood Close.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if it is possible to have a condition attached to this application to ensure that residents do not suffer what has occurred in Wisbech Road this past week, not only has there been the hold up in the traffic, bearing in mind the whole of March has been gridlocked due to roadworks, but there has also been an issue with dust. She made the point that there are elderly residents in Peterhouse Crescent, Cawood Close and Elm Road and she would not like them to suffer what the residents of Wisbech Road have. Nick Harding responded that they are unable to lawfully impose any planning conditions that conflict with matters off-site such as the use of the public highway, with the only exception being vehicle routing agreements. He stated that, notwithstanding what the agent has said, a planning condition cannot stop people from parking on the highway in a lawful way so you may get a stack of vehicles queuing to enter the site which is unfortunate but cannot be controlled through a planning condition.

·       Councillor Connor referred to Councillor Mrs French mentioning dust and dust is a big problem in Bellmans Avenue, Bellmans Road and Diana Close in Whittlesey and he has had numerous complaints about it and asked if a condition could be applied that a bowser or water supply is required to stop the dust. Nick Harding responded that dust suppression is part of the construction management plan and what often happens is there is a period of dry weather dust starts to become a problem and officers have to remind the operators of the site that they need to deal with their dust suppression as per their plan. He stated that if there is a report of dust the operator is not complying with their construction management plan and if this is a significant ongoing issue on site a breach of condition notice can be served.

·       Councillor Connor referred to issues with mud on the road, which happened outside the Taylor Wimpey site in Whittlesey and Highways accompanied him to the site asking them to take action, but this Council’s Enforcement Officer said the conditions on the site were not strong enough, which he found concerning. Nick Harding responded that there is a wheel wash/road sweeping condition but again more often than not it is a case of reminding the site operator that they need to put this in operation and the poorly worded condition issue has been addressed.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that as long as conditions are applied regarding dust and mud on the road she is satisfied. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that these conditions should be worded in the strongest possible terms.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked, whilst looking at a construction plan, should there not be set times when they can work due to the residential properties surrounding the site as a lot of these sites start at 6, 6.30, 7am which is not fair to the residents. Nick Harding responded that the work hours are standardised throughout the country and that would be applied to the construction management plan condition. He stated that members will be aware through the training he has provided that one of the Covid measures the Government put in was to allow working up until either 9 or 10pm on six days a week but this has now come to an end.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that this site lies in her County Council area, and she will be monitoring it very carefully but she is more than happy to support the application.

·       Councillor Topgood expressed the view that officer’s have the recommendation completely right on this application and he will be supporting it as care homes are needed.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she will be supporting the application, there is an increasing elderly population and not all can be cared for by their family and she also does not think the proposal would be detrimental to the area.

Proposed by Councillor Topgood, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Connor declared that his son owns a property in Peterhouse Crescent, but this would make no difference to his decision making and he would approach this application with an open mind)

(Councillor Skoulding declared that he owns a retirement home and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Sutton declared that he owns a property in Peterhouse Crescent and retired the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French and Purser declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)