Agenda item

20/00458/FUL - Single storey, first floor and two storey extensions to existing 20-bed residential care home to create a 48-bed residential care home; 3 no. additional communal living/dining rooms, a laundry room, enclosed landscaped garden, car parking and associated works - Retirement Home, Hopwood Court, Birmingham Road, Hopwood, Worcestershire B48 7AQ - Mrs. M. Birchill

Meeting of Planning Committee, Monday 6th December 2021 6.00 p.m. (Item 56/21)

Minutes:

Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration because it was for a Major development.

Officers presented the report and in doing so informed the Committee that the application was for a single storey, first floor and two storey extensions to an existing 20-bed residential care home to create a 48-bed residential care home.

Officers referred to the Site Location presentation slide. The care home was located along a private driveway accessed off the eastern side of the Birmingham Road (A441). Officers drew Members’ attention to the Access from Birmingham Road presentation slide, as detailed on page 87 of the main agenda report. There was a belt of trees to the right of the site, tree matters were covered on pages 75 and 76 of the main agenda report.

Officers further referred to the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 80 to 100 of the main agenda report, which included:-

· Front elevation from north west

· Access from Birmingham Road

· Existing and proposed site plan

· Proposed site plan

· Existing ground floor

· Proposed ground floor

· Existing first floor

· Proposed first floor

· Front elevation: existing and proposed

· Rear elevation: existing and proposed

· Existing and proposed: (NE facing) side elevation

· Existing and proposed: (NW facing) side elevation

· Proposed courtyard elevations

Currently the site had 10 car parking spaces, this would increase to 30 car parking spaces.

Officers continued and informed the Committee that there was clearly a need for this type of development in the district and that principle of the development was accepted. Policy BDP10 sets out that the Council would encourage the provision of housing for the elderly where appropriate whilst avoiding an undue concentration in any location. The applicant had commissioned an ‘Assessment of Need’ report, which concluded that there was a current shortfall of residential care closer to Bromsgrove and Alvechurch.

The site was located within the Green Belt and paragraph 149 (c states that the ‘extension or alteration of a building’ was appropriate development provided that the development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the front elevation from the north west presentation slide and in doing so further referred Members to the planning history of the care home. The existing floor space present within the care home equated to 660m². If permission were to be granted, the total floor space following the development would rise to 2400m², a total increase of 1740m². This would represent a non-proportionate (disproportionate) increase.

The applicant had raised a number of matters, as detailed on pages 72 and 73 of the main agenda report, referring to Very Special Circumstances (VSC). Whilst the matters raised by the applicant were material planning considerations in the determination of the application it was also necessary to examine whether there were genuine VSC, effectively unique to the site and development proposal. The applicant had commissioned a report by Christie & Co to undertake a review into the viability of Hopwood Court, to determine the need to extend the existing care home in order for it to remain economically viable.

This was independently assessed by Andrew Golland Associates, as detailed on pages 74 and 75 of the main agenda report.

Based on the evidence submitted, officers were not satisfied that the survival of the business was dependent of the proposed development. It was not considered that the reasons put forward by the applicant would amount to VSC that would outweigh the substantial harm arising to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. M. Birchill, the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Members then considered the application, which officers had recommended be refused.

Members stated that whilst they understood the intrusion on the Green Belt, the area was screened by trees and the plans showed extensive replacement tree planting was proposed. Members referred to the comments made by the applicant with regard to the need for the care home to be brought up to date with new ensuite facilities. Whilst Members understood the information provided by Andrew Golland Associates in respect of the viability of the current business; Members emphasised that quality of life for elderly people in care homes was important.

Members were mindful of the information provided by both the applicant and officers with regard to VSC and the viability of the business.

Members agreed that it was a difficult application to consider. There was a need for care homes and specialist dementia care homes in the district.

Officers briefly responded to questions from the Committee with regard to the original footprint of the building.

Members also commented that there was a need for care homes to expand in order to provide better living accommodation, such as ensuite facilities, in order to meet the need of residents.

In response to Members, officers clarified that the applicant had seen the full contents of the report from Andrew Golland Associates.

Some Members commented that they would have liked to have seen more viability information provided.

Councillor A. J. B. Beaumont stated that in order to meet the Councils five year land supply that Green Belt land would be used, and that this proposed development was relatively small in size and was surrounded by trees and hedges and would not be seen from the road. There was not enough provision throughout the country for elderly people.

Officers reiterated that ‘not seeing’ a development did not amount to VSC.

Some Members further commented that looking after the elderly did amount to VSC and the need to provide suitable accommodation.

In response to questions from Members with regard to viability, officers drew Members’ attention to page 76 of the main agenda report. The applicant had not demonstrated that the business would fail without the proposed extension. The proposed extension would still be inappropriate. However, if the applicant provided detailed information on the viability of the business, Members could then determine if this equated to VSC.

Some Members further agreed that more detailed information on the viability of the business was needed.

Whilst agreeing with this, Councillor G. Denaro referred to page 71 of the main agenda and that the Governments Planning Practice Guidance stresses ‘that the need to provide housing for older people is critical. In this respect, it has to be concluded that the needs of BDC’s ageing population are acute, and evidenced national, regional and local need is currently being unmet and forecasted to remain unmet in the foreseeable future. The principle of the proposed development is acceptable’.

Officers summarised the debate and acknowledged that Councillor Beaumont had proposed an alternative Recommendation that the application be approved. The VSC being that there was a need for this type of accommodation and that this need would outweigh the substantial harm arising to the Green Belt from the inappropriate development.

Members were therefore minded to approve the application and on being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to:-

a) authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to agree the final scope and detailed wording and numbering of conditions:-

· Time constraints, shorter time frame of 18 months delivery

· Plans listed

· External Materials

· Drainage

· Landscaping

· Lighting

· Car parking

· Accessible driveway

· Electric charging points that were able to charge lithium iron and lead acid batteries (used in mobility wheelchairs and scooters)

· Cycle storage provision

· Method statement

· Waste provision

and

b) authority be delegated to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and

Leisure to determine the full planning application following the

satisfactory completion of a suitable Unilateral Undertaking to agree:-

· Highways contribution

Supporting documents: