Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered an application to erect an extra care residential building comprising 55 No. residential units, shared communal areas and ancillary facilities. To modify vehicular accesses, form pedestrian accesses, parking, servicing, courtyard and landscaping, and carry out associated works.

 

The Area Lead (Gillingham) gave a presentation on the application. The presentation included various plans and images of the proposed development. Members heard that the site was adjacent to a conservation area and several listed buildings, however there were no objections from Historic England or the Conservation Officer. The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the adjacent heritage asset Lime Tree House. However, the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm. The Section 106 agreement and the benefits of the proposal were outlined. The recommendation would be to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 agreement and the conditions.

 

The Transport Development Manager outlined the access to the proposed development. The northern access to the development would be for refuse collection and service vehicles whereas the southern access would be used for parking, visitors, and would include 5 disabled parking spaces. It was expected that there would be no more than 22 two-way trips to and from the flats per day. The Committee heard that Queen’s Street was traffic calmed and there was good visibility for pedestrians crossing the southern access. The Highway Authority supported the recommendation.

 

A number of written representations were received, and these are attached as an annexure to these minutes.

 

Cllr David Walsh, Ward Member for Gillingham

The Local Member for Gillingham informed the Committee that residents had not always been supportive of this application as two buildings were demolished on this site. He stated that the applicant had done everything to make the proposed plans acceptable and there would be several social and economic benefits. He recognised that the applicant was a registered housing provider and that they would aim for this development to be 100% affordable housing. He also acknowledged that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and that there would be no material planning reasons to refuse the application.

 

Members’ Questions and Comments

Members of the Committee asked questions and commented on the proposal.

 

In response to the questions, the Area Lead (Gillingham) advised that: there was a sufficient amount of car parking spaces; there is a minimum age requirement of 55 years old, with the average age more likely to be 80; three flats would be available for younger people in need of care; Dorset residents would be given priority to move to the flats; the trees and landscape would be well kept, but the types of trees and plants were not yet known; and the bin store would be internal.

 

In response to questions raised on the environment, members heard from the Area Lead (Gillingham) that: 50% of parking spaces had the infrastructure to implement charging points in the future; there would be charging points for mobility scooters; and the applicant has considered different types of technology for energy and has chosen the most appropriate types.

 

There were some concerns on the location of the sub-station and any noise it might create. The Committee heard that this was the most suitable place for the sub-station, it would be enclosed in brick with a slate roof, and the applicant was confident that there would be no adverse noise.

 

A member felt that the addition of privacy screens on the balconies would be beneficial to protecting residential amenity. Members also felt that maintaining the soft landscaping for 15 years would be more beneficial than the 5 years that were in the conditions.

 

As the development was a key site next to the conservation area, the Committee felt that the quality of the design, materials, and detailing was very important. The Committee would not like to see a reduced quality of the design, materials, and detailing, and it was important that the development was built as approved.

 

Proposed by Cllr Ridout and seconded by Cllr Cook that the committee approve the recommendations as set out in the report, and with the addition of a balcony privacy screen condition, and the extension of the soft landscaping condition to 15 years.

 

The vote was carried.

 

Decision

That the committee approve the following recommendations, with the addition of a balcony privacy screen condition, and the extension of the soft landscaping condition to 15 years.

 

A)   That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant permission subject to a Section 106 agreement to address:

 

-     25% affordable housing

-     Community facilities

-     Informal outdoor space

 

and the conditions (and their reasons).

 

B)   That permission be refused for failing to secure the obligations above if the agreement is not completed by (23 September 2021) or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.