Agenda item

Case Officer’s report.

(Enclosure)

Decision:-

To determine the application as follows:-

KJC1

Application ref:         S11/0967/MJRF

Description:              Demolition of 49 St Catherine’s Road, and 1A Dudley Road, and construction of retirement accommodation for the elderly including provision of communal facilities, landscaping and car parking

Location:                   49 St Catherine’s Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9DE

Decision:                   Minded to refuse

Members noted the above application, which was before the Committee following an appeal against non-determination. The application would now be considered by the Planning Inspectorate and could not be determined by the authority. However, members were now being asked how they would determine the application in its current format so that this could form the local planning authority’s case at the appeal.

The Committee noted the full standard report on the application, which had been submitted in August 2011, in particular the comments from the Highway Authority, Anglian Water, Environment Agency, Open Space Officer, Lincolnshire Community Health Services, Historic Environment Officer (Archaeology), Crime Prevention Officer, Environmental Protection, Tree Officer and Planning Policy, confirmation from  English Heritage that the building does not meet the criteria for designation in a national context, lengthy comments from the Acting Principal Conservation Officer, comments from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and representations (including a petition) from neighbouring residents and letters in support, and a note of the required S.106 Heads of Terms.

The Development Management Service Manager outlined the reasons on which the application had been deferred at the meeting in February 2012, and suggested a view which could be taken on each of the four reasons as follows:-

1.    Bulk and size – officers could put forward a good case on these grounds.

2.    Access – there was no support from the Highway Authority for an access off St. Catherine’s Road, and it was not suggested that this ground be pursued.

3.    Car Parking – bearing in mind the applicant’s expertise in this regard, it was considered that car parking provision was acceptable, and that this ground should not be pursued.

4.    Incorporation of the existing building in the scheme – English Heritage had not considered the building worthy of protection, and the case for including this ground was insufficient.

In summary, he suggested that he would only be comfortable taking the Council’s case at the Hearing on point 1 above.

A lengthy discussion then took place, during which it was proposed and seconded that:-

“The Committee are minded to refuse the application on the basis of the adverse impact of the development on the street scene and the amenities of neighbours due to the scale and bulk of the proposed buildings.”

Further discussion took place on the Development Management Service Manager’s report and on the proposition. It was suggested by the Development Management Service Manager that the Council’s case should concentrate on the strongest point possible. However, members were of the opinion that all matters raised at the last meeting in objection should be part of the Council’s case. The Development Management Service Manager and Assistant Solicitor reiterated the advice against including all reasons and that the case should be contested for the strongest reason, as had been suggested earlier in the discussion.

The Committee considered the other reasons which had been put forward, and it was suggested that the proposal be varied to include the following at the end:-

“…and that the Committee also have issue with the access and egress at the site, as well as the on-site parking issue, and that these be included subject to professional advice received in connection therewith.”

The proposer and seconder of the original motion agreed that this could be varied as above.

Members queried why the heritage reason could not be added as part of the case, and it was explained that this was not a strong enough reason, bearing in mind comments from English Heritage. It was, however, proposed and seconded, as an amendment:-

“Also to include the heavily represented public opinion with regard to the preservation of St. Catherine’s House and its features.”

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost. The proposition as varied was then put to the vote and agreed as follows:-

“The Committee are minded to refuse the application on the basis of the adverse impact of the development on the street scene and the amenities of neighbours due to the scale and bulk of the proposed buildings, and that the Committee also have issues with the access and egress at the site, as well as the on-site parking issue, and that these be included subject to professional advice received in connection therewith.”