Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/18/028

Planning Application - (i) Change of use from dental clinic (D1) to dental clinic and community healthcare facility (D1); (ii) 5no. additional car parking spaces

(Councillor Sara Mildmay-White declared a local non-pecuniary interest in this item as she was a Partner Governor representing St Edmundsbury Borough Council on the West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust's Council of Governors.  She would remain in the meeting and would take part in the debate and voting thereon.)

Planning Application - (i) Change of use from dental clinic (D1) to dental clinic and community healthcare facility (D1); (ii) 5no. additional car parking spaces

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel, the item had been referred to the Panel at the request of a Ward Member (Moreton Hall).

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Officers were recommending that the application be refused.

As part of her presentation the Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates:

·         Attention was drawn to the ‘late papers’ which were issued as a supplement to the agenda papers and which set out amended reasons for refusal that now formed the Officer recommendation;

·         Members were advised that the Agent for the applicant had handed the Officer, immediately prior to the Committee meeting, a letter of support from Healthwatch Suffolk;

·         In respect of Paragraph 9 of Report No DEV/SE/18/028, the Committee was informed that the Highways Authority had since confirmed that they continued to object to the application and remained concerned at the level of on-street parking the proposal could cause.

In conclusion, the Case Officer explained that the Planning Authority had given great weight to the provision of Community Dental Services within the community but the degree of harm that could potentially be caused by the severe impact of parking on the highway outweighed this benefit.

Speakers:    Ms Alison Reid (CEO Community Dental Services) spoke in support of the application

                   Councillor Trevor Beckwith (Ward Member: Moreton Hall) spoke in support of the application

                   Mr Richard Sykes-Popham (agent) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Julia Wakelam opened the debate by asking if it would be possible to condition the application to restrict usage to the specific service provider and/or time limit the life of any permission.

In response, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that it would be possible to limit use of the premises to a specific provider although she would not recommend the use of a time limit; which would be difficult to justify and could affect the viability of the application.

A number of Members voiced support for the application in light of the service it would provide to the local community, however, some of the Committee also agreed with the difficulty in accessing the site via any other method aside from a motor vehicle.

Councillor David Nettleton stated that he did not agree with the access restrictions discussed.  He pointed out that Moreton Hall had excellent foot and cycle path connections and that an additional bus stop could be requested to service the facility. 

Accordingly, he proposed that be application be granted, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal and inclusive of the condition to limit usage to the applicant, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that in light of the objection raised by the Highways Authority the Committee’s Decision Making Protocol would be invoked in order to allow time for Officers to produce a risk assessment in respect of the application.

This would also enable the Case Officer to work with the applicant/agent in order to facilitate a car park management plan and to establish what other sites had been considered for the service, alongside the identification of any relevant case law.

Councillor Peter Stevens, supported by some other Members of the Committee, spoke against the use of the Decision Making Protocol and wished to take a vote on approval of the application. 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) and the Lawyer in attendance jointly advised Members that it was not within their gift to determine if a risk assessment was required; in line with the Decision Making Protocol where the Committee wished to overturn a recommendation and the decision was considered to be significant by Officers a final decision on the application would be deferred to allow associated risks to be clarified.

Accordingly, Councillor Mildmay-White proposed an amendment that Members be minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal and inclusive of the condition to limit usage to the applicant, and this was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.

Upon the amendment being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Members be MINDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF REFUSAL and inclusive of the condition to limit usage to the applicant.

The application was therefore DEFERRED in order to allow a risk assessment to be produced and for the Case Officer to work with the applicant/agent in order to facilitate a car park management plan and to establish what other sites had been considered for the service, alongside the identification of any relevant case law.