Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

During the Officers’ presentation Members were advised that should they be minded to approve this application an amendment to condition 2 was required to detail an additional plan. This was noted. The Applicant, Ms Kemp then addressed the Committee.

A lengthy debate ensued and in response to a number of comments raised, the Principal Planning Officer provided Members with additional information, including:

·                A number of concerns were raised regarding the car parking provision for both residents and staff and compliance with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document. The Officer advised that given the level of dementia care proposed it was felt that the level of car parking spaces proposed would be acceptable. During the discussion, Councillor A T Fittock provided the Committee with details of the number of spaces required to be policy compliant.

·                Full biodiversity net gain had been submitted to show how this was to be achieved.

·                The materials would be of a palate to match those approved across the rest of the garden suburb site.

·                A lift was proposed for the development in order to access all three storeys.

·                No space, internal or external, was provided for storage of mobility scooters. It was confirmed that a condition regarding this would not be considered unreasonable. In response to a query regarding Parking Standard 4.10.5 and provision for mobility scooter storage the Officer advised she would have to check this outside of the meeting.

·                The Officer advised that the delivery point would be at the back of the development where the kitchen was, although there was no specific delivery point detailed.

Councillor R H Siddall requested that an amendment be made to the report as the application site was not within the Parish of Great Totham, but in fact Heybridge. The Officer advised that having checked the site was within the boundary of Great Totham.

Councillor P L Spenceley proposed that the application be deferred on the grounds that there was not enough information on mobility scooters, Officers were to request if further car parking spaces could be provided, and that consideration be given to the Council’s Design Guide. This proposal was duly seconded.

In light of the proposal, the Chairperson put this to the Committee. Upon a vote being taken she declared this was not agreed.

The Chairperson reminded Members of the Constitutional Brake Clause as provided for in the Committee’s Operating Protocol and advised that the constitution brake was therefore invoked.

At this point the Head of Service: Development Management and Building Control clarified the two options available in respect of the constitutional brake. He explained that discussions on this application in relation to parking and design could be considered as reasons for refusal and as there were no further implications that Officers could take away and bring back in a supplementary report that would inform Members any different his opinion was that deferral would not be appropriate in this case. He advised the Committee that therefore refusal could be considered in the usual manner as long as there were clear reasons for refusal, the wording of which Officers would confirm with the Chairperson outside of the meeting.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, for reasons relating to Policy D1 and the Car Parking Supplementary Planning Document. This proposal was duly seconded. Following further discussion Councillor Fluker amended his proposal to include reasons regarding not meeting the mobility scooter requirement and there being no provision for delivery vehicles / loading bay. This was duly seconded.

The Head of Service suggested that matters relating parking issues including mobility scooters and no loading bays can be incorporated into one reason for refusal. This was noted.

The Chairperson moved the proposal in the name of Councillor Fluker and upon a vote being taken was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for reasons as detailed above and the wording of them delegated to officers in consultation with the Chairperson.