Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillors Hoy and Tierney, District Councillors. Councillor Hoy asked members to refuse this application as it is, in her view, contrary to LP16 which states that extensions will only be allowed where it does not adversely impact neighbouring residents and she believes this proposal does. She referred to 10.16 of the officer’s report where is states the rear elevation of 24 and front elevation of Langley Lodge overlap and queried how this cannot be an impact.

Councillor Hoy stated that the plan now includes external steps which are close to the boundary and she feels this will create additional noise by people going up and down them and it is not known what time as it is a care home it could be late into the night so how could this not be an impact, with the steps being an addition to the previous proposal. She referred to 10.26 of the officer’s report where it is admitted that the extension will overshadow No.24’s garden and queried how is this not an impact and she believes this clearly shows there is an impact and the proposal should be refused under LP16.

Councillor Hoy added that 22 parking spaces are required as per the Local Plan but as the development only provides 11 due to being near the Town Centre this reduction is acceptable, however, in Appendix A of the Local Plan says a reduction can be agreed by negotiation, who had this negotiation presuming it to be Planning Officers and the developer but she does not believe as a local member that this negotiation is acceptable. She acknowledges that Somers Road Car Park is nearby but this is already full.

Councillor Tierney expressed the view that there are significant differences to this proposal to the one in 2018, he did oppose the previous application and was disgusted when committee approved it as attention is always given to proposals where lots of people are involved or protest and one persons right to enjoy their property is just as important as a lot of people’s right to enjoy their property. He advised when he came last time, he came with the lady and her husband, since then with the shadow of this hanging over them he has passed away and she has become unwell and is not able to be here today and it is her home and she loves it, phoning him frightened about this effect on her property.

Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that it clearly overshadows her property and officers admit that in the report but are saying it does not matter as it only overshadowing a bit of the garden, but she has the right to enjoy all her garden and he feels that none of this is fair and it is not right because this could have been built in such a way that there was no overshadowing, no overlapping and enough parking spaces but they have not done this because they feel this committee will be a soft touch and it will just be pushed through as there is business value to it but there is also individual value against it. He urged committee to refuse the application.

Members asked questions of Councillors Hoy and Tierney as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.1 where Wisbech Town Council supports the application and made the point that they are both Town Councillors as well so why is it being supported by the Town Council? Councillor Hoy responded that she thinks it might be due to the reports that the Town Council gets, which are from the website opposed to the committee’s report published a week before the meeting and if they had had the same report as committee they may have made a different decision. She stated that when the residents contacted her and on first look at the plans she herself did not see what the issue was but on reading the report that has been put together by professional Planning Officers and seeing how close it was, she saw the point about the overlapping and external steps and thought actually the residents do have a point. Councillor Tierney added that he missed this application going to the Town Council’s Planning as he would have gone to speak on it there and he knows the lady who is closest to the proposal and the other residents were not aware or would have gone too. He believes that if the Town Council had understood the full depth of the proposal and heard the opinions of local people they would have been against.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the concerns about parking, with 11 spaces being provided and is it known how many staff work here? Councillor Hoy responded that she does not but officers have clearly made the point that it should have 22 parking spaces as per the Local Plan for the type of dwelling it is and have mitigated this by saying it is close to the Town Centre, but people often park in the road in Queens Road and whilst it is a wide road 11 additional cars on that road will not be easily taken and Somers Road Car Park is often at capacity.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that his concern is the car parking as it has the potential for a lot of people going in and out and looking at the plans he feels it is over development for what its needs are.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Bridget Harris, an objector. Ms Harris stated that she lives on Queens Road and lives to the left hand side of and shares a long boundary with Langley Lodge. She did send in a letter objecting to the proposal, this is a residential area, with a number of older properties, and she has a long plot ending with her vegetable garden, with there being a boundary wall between herself and Langley Lodge, and she can see greenery, grass and trees, with the extension that is there being very enclosing and she would not wish the equivalent of this on the occupant of the property on the other side of Langley Lodge, who is an elderly lady and came to see her so upset about the proposal and dreading it.

Ms Harris expressed the view that there does not appear to be in any of the paperwork a piling risk assessment, she has enquired with the case officer but she did not get a reply, she has also been onto Building Control and has also heard nothing so it has been difficult to find out information and it could be said that there is not going to be any piling but they do not know either way. She referred to a new build detached house being approved in 2014 at the bottom of Langley Lodge’s garden just over the boundary wall and that was piled and those piles went down 20/30 feet, it was horrendous day after day with the noise and vibrations and asked for it not to be inflicted on residents again.

Ms Harris referred to the swimming pool being removed and to her knowledge that outdoor swimming pool has been filled in with soil and queried if this was going to be particularly stable ground here she does not think so. She stated that the area is close to the river and is on a bed of silt, with Queens Road houses already having a number of defects and showing signs of stress, one of which is on the existing extension of Langley Lodge.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked for information on the overshadowing and whether it is thought to be acceptable? David Rowen responded that the officer judgement is that there may be a degree of overshadowing but it would not be significantly detrimental to the amenity of the adjacent property. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would disagree and under Human Rights this resident’s enjoyment of her home is being taken away, which is a fundamental right.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how many residents will be accommodated in the care home?  David Rowen responded that it is important to remember that this is an established care home, which already has an under provision of car parking but the extension proposed indicates that there will be a further 8 single bedrooms.

·       Councillor Hicks asked how the calculations are worked out to say that 22 car parking spaces are required? David Rowen responded that the calculation is set out in the Appendix to the Local Plan which gives the number of car parking spaces for certain uses relative to the number of bedrooms and it is important to remember as set out in the report that there is an existing under delivery of car parking relative to the operation of the care home and it is not considered that the additional car parking spaces that would come about because of this application would be so problematic given the Town Centre location and proximity to Somers Road Car Park so no reason for refusal can be justified on that basis, which was also the conclusion in 2018 when nearly the same application was granted. Councillor Hicks asked if the benchmark is taken for a dwelling or is there a specific provision to be made for residential care homes? David Rowen advised that the calculation is based on a care home.

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

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that his main concern is the over development of the site regarding parking, there is a shortfall of parking of at least 11 spaces unless the lawn was removed and care homes have a lot of comings and goings, having to accommodate ambulances and doctors where good access is required at all times. His concern is in relation to the 39 metre extension, the overshadowing and lack of car parking.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he has concerns, not just about parking although it is being increased to 11 there will be 8 additional bedrooms and there will be staff and people visiting wanting to park and may be parking on the road, but as it is a care home there are going to be ambulances, doctors and very large delivery vehicles so they are either going to have to stop on the road or alternatively they are going to come off the road causing congestion. He stated that he will not be supporting this proposal.

·       Nick Harding reminded members about the planning history with there being a previously approved not wholly dissimilar scheme and there were no concerns expressed then in relation to inadequate provision of car parking and equally no expressions of concern in respect of overshadowing of the neighbour’s garden to the north. He stated that if committee were to refuse this application he would have significant concern about the award of costs against the Council irrespective of whether the case was won or not.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he has seen that a scheme had been given approval before and questioned why it has not been built within the three-year period? David Rowen responded that he is not aware of why it has not been built out but it may have been due to  their commercial interest and the Covid pandemic playing a part but whether it was built out or not is not the issue it is that there has been a planning permission granted relatively recently. Councillor Gerstner stated that he acknowledges this is a new application but this is a new Planning Committee and may be the previous Planning Committee did not flag up the issues being flagged up today. David Rowen made the point that there is an expectation that a Planning Committee as a decision-making entity notwithstanding its make-up will display a degree of consistency in decision-making and as Mr Harding indicated unless members can articulate a significant change in circumstances in any reasons for refusal since 2018 there is a distinct possibility if the case goes to appeal that the Council would be liable for an award of costs against it for unreasonable behaviour. Nick Harding added that there are no objections from the Highway Authority and if committee is going to say there is a risk to highway safety as a consequence of having inadequate on-site parking then Highways support would be needed in an appeal situation.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she does not like this application at all but does not think there are any material considerations to refuse it on. She made the point that Highways have not objected and she feels sorry for the lady next door as her human rights are being taken away if this is approved.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that looking at the access as it is now it looks a very good access and asked if a condition could be placed on the proposal that more car parking is provided by perhaps removing a little bit of the lawn at the front, which will mitigate some of the parking concerns. David Rowen referred to 10.32 of the officer’s report which sets out the position on car parking so it is going from a situation where there is already significant under provision of spaces to a level which addresses the additional requirement arising from this extension so the recommendation is to grant so there is no issue raised in respect of the car parking. He made the point that there is an application in front of members which indicates additional car parking that still keeps the access arrangement and he does not think from a visual point of view that the entire frontage should be taken up with hard standing.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the extra ramps that have been added and asked if the height is known for these as these are going to be overlooking properties so there must be a privacy issue, one of them is for a matron’s door so that is going to be used 24 hours a day and they are quite high up so they are going to be overlooking into someone’s garden. David Rowen referred to the slide on the presentation screen which shows on the left image where the steps are and they are up to the floor level of the building so it is not anticipated that there should be any further overlooking as a result, with the platform of the steps being the same level as the windows. He stated that on the previously approved plans there was a footpath down the side of the building which could have engendered a certain degree of activity anyway so it is not considered that the likely activity to serve one door is going to be such that it would justify a reason for refusal.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Imafidon to grant the application as per the officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a majority vote.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of grant of planning permission as they feel that the proposal would result in a shortfall in car parking provision for Langley Lodge and will result in on-street car parking to the detriment of road safety, contrary to the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy LP15 (Part C) and by virtue of the siting of the set of access steps to the north elevation of the development, an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance would be created as well as overlooking and loss of privacy for the residents of the neighbouring property, number 24 Queens Road, to the detriment of the amenity of the occupiers of this property and contrary to Policy LP16(e) of the Local Plan.

(Councillor Rackley registered that he was a member of Wisbech Town Council’s Planning Committee when this application was considered and, therefore, took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)