Agenda item

Demolish existing building, erection of a new 56-bed reablement centre (Care Home with Nursing) with associated communal and supporting accommodation, landscaped gardens and car park.

Cllr Christopher left the meeting at 11:39.

Cllr Monks returned to the Council Chamber at 11:39.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application for the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a 56‑bed reablement centre. The site was shown on a map, situated south of the town centre and currently occupied by a disused purpose‑built care home. The site included large gardens and was bordered by West Bay Road and the A35, with Flood Lane providing access. Photographs of the existing building were displayed, showing predominantly lawned areas with a number of trees, as well as views from the A35.

The proposal involved demolishing the existing building, which was described as having little architectural merit and replacing it with a single new structure. The proposed building had been designed to appear as four separate elements, with pitched roofs over two storeys, linked by flat‑roofed sections. The design incorporated three internal lightwells, allowing light to enter from both sides of the building.

The proposed elevations and materials were presented, including the use of soft red brick and a mix of modern materials. The Lead Project Officer highlighted the proposed landscaping, the layout of the car park at the end of Flood Lane and the building footprint. Plans identified both retained trees and new planting. The existing access via Flood Lane would remain unchanged, with the car park intended primarily for staff and visitors. Artist’s impressions illustrated how the building would appear from the exterior.

In terms of the principle of development, it was explained that the site lay within Bridport and within the Defined Development Boundary (DDB). The proposal made use of previously developed land, a form of development strongly supported by the NPPF. There was no objection to the demolition of the existing building from statutory consultees. The vertical emphasis of window design and the use of soft red brick were considered appropriate and characteristic of other developments in the town.

It was noted that the only immediate neighbour was Gordon’s Court, and no concerns had been identified regarding overlooking. It was confirmed that the nearest listed buildings were located on the opposite side of the road and their setting was not considered to be harmed by the proposal. The biodiversity elements of the scheme were shown on the site plan. The application was considered acceptable in terms of highway matters and the existing access remained suitable. Several of the trees on site would be retained and where removals were necessary, higher‑quality replacements were proposed.

Regarding flood risk and drainage, a small corner of the site lay within Flood Zone 2. The applicant had undertaken a sequential test and found no suitable alternative sites. Surface‑water flood risk affected only a small part of the site in a 1‑in‑1000‑year event, and engineers had confirmed that this could be mitigated without difficulty.

Public representation was received from the applicant, Samuel Poole. He noted that the centre would provide short term recovery for people after leaving hospital and would prevent people from moving into long term care accommodation prematurely. The site had been designed with input from care specialists and safety advisors to create a purpose-built development.

The following responses were provided by officers, in response to questions from members:

·       Negotiations had taken place with Dorset Councils Tree Officers and as a result a row of proposed Beech trees had been changed to garden trees to better reflect the space.

·       The applicant had carried out an exercise and determined that it would not have been economical to repurpose the existing building and that new development was preferable.

·       It was not considered necessary at this stage to condition that permeable surfaces be provided, as it was not yet known if this would be an appropriate solution in addressing potential flooding.

·       A detailed surface water management scheme was required to be submitted and would have to meet the relevant standards. Due to the low risk of flooding, it was not required to be submitted at the planning application stage.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all that this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, it was proposed by Cllr Northam and seconded by Cllr Bawden that the application be granted.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.