Agenda item

The Area Lead South presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point gave a presentation showing the site and proposed plans. 

He explained that at the meeting of Area South Committee on 30^th November 2016 member’s resolved to defer the application to undertake a site visit and that this site visit took place prior to today’s meeting.  He reiterated the main points for concern being; Parking and Access, Overlooking and Shadowing. He considered the proposed parking on site exceeded the policy requirement and believed the visibility splay acceptable on the basis that the removal of the trees or retaining wall would be far more harmful to the setting of the conservation area than the current situation. 

He also referred to slides showing the first floor window analysis confirming which windows on the proposed east side elevation would be partly obscured.  He believed that although the proposal would bring some further shadowing of the gardens to neighbouring properties at certain times of the day on balance this did not warrant refusal of the application.  .

He concluded that on the basis of all the information provided and with the amendment to condition 5 his recommendation was for approval for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

Mr Andy Harrison the owner of No. 11 Willow Road addressed the committee and spoke in objection to the application.  His main concern was the mass of the proposed extension and the overbearing impact and overshadowing this would have on his and surrounding properties.  He also raised concern regarding the onsite parking and the current parking issues within the area and believed that the additional intake of staff, residents and visitors for the care home will only exacerbate the issue and have a detrimental effect on the neighbourhood. 

Mr Graham Herridge, a local resident spoke in objection to the application.  He believed that the development would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the area and due to the density and overbearing mass of the proposal result in the loss of light and privacy of the adjacent properties.  He felt the need to safeguard the setting of the conservation area, appreciated that members had visited the site and note the recommendation for refusal of this application from Yeovil Town Council. 

Mr David Marks, the resident of No. 9 Willow road also spoke in objection to the application.  He felt the development would overshadow his property blocking any visible skyline and natural light and did not consider an extension of this size was necessary.  He believed that the well-being of local residents was a main consideration.

Mr Andrew Tregay, the agent then addressed the committee.  He endorsed the officer’s report and explained the requirement to update care homes and the ongoing need for the elderly.  He noted that no other objections had been received and that the applicant had worked hard to address any issues already raised including the undertaking of a shadow assessment.  He confirmed and agreed the requirement for no-opening windows and obscure glad on four windows of the proposed east elevation and although the parking provision was adequate would be happy to increase this provision if required.

Following a short discussion the Area Lead South explained that no representation or advice/guidance had been requested from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and therefore not a consideration in this application. 

Mr Andrew Tregay, the agent clarified that there will be a range of types of care on offer however there is potential and scope; subject to CQC requirements and that any further changes would nonetheless need to be brought back to committee for agreement.

Councillor John Clark, Ward member although concerned regarding the parking provision on site acknowledged it exceeded the policy requirement and believed the vehicular access to the site was also acceptable.  His main concern however was the size and mass of the proposed extension and the overbearing impact and overshadowing this would have on the neighbouring properties in Willow Road.  He considered for this reason he would not support the application.

Councillor Wes Read, Ward member also voiced his concern regarding the size and mass of the proposed extension and the overbearing impact this would have on neighbouring properties in Willow Road.  He believed it would benefit if the exiting traffic from the site was designed for left turn only and that further improvement of landscaping on site was required.  He considered this proposal to be overdevelopment of the site and therefore would not support the application.

During discussion, members expressed varying comments including:

·         Sympathy with the overlooking to neighbouring properties however there is a chronic need for care homes and believes the design fits the purpose.

·         Appreciate the size of the proposed extension, however in order for the business to be viable a significant increase in residential space is required.

·         Appreciate the ongoing parking problems within the area and have reservations regarding the proposed parking provisions on site, however acknowledges this exceeds policy requirements.

·         Concern regarding the size and mass of the proposed extension and the overbearing impact and overshadowing this would have on properties both in Willow Road and Cloverdale Court.

Following a short debate, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation by reason of its massing and having an overbearing impact on the adjacent properties at Willow Road.

On being put to the vote this was carried by 7 votes in favour, 5 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 16/03944/FUL be refused for the following reason:

‘The proposal, by reason of its massing, creates an overbearing impact on adjacent properties at Willow Road contrary to Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 17’.

(voting 7 in favour, 5 against, 3 abstentions)