Agenda item

Planning Application DC/23/0229/FUL - 9 Tasman Road, Haverhill (Report No: DEV/WS/23/025)

Report No: DEV/WS/23/025

 

Planning application - change of use from residential (C3) to residential children's home (C2)

Minutes:

(Councillor David Smith declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that he had attended Haverhill Town Council’s meeting when the Town Council considered the application. However, he stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

 

Planning application - change of use from residential (C3) to residential children's home (C2)

 

This application was considered by the Delegation Panel on 1 August 2023 at the request of the Ward Councillor, where it was decided that the application should be determined at the Development Control Committee. 

 

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting and as part of her presentation to the Committee the Planning Officer also showed videos of the site.

 

The Planning Officer also advised Members that one further neighbour objection had been received since publication of the agenda; which largely reiterated the points/comments raised in previous representations and summarised in the report.

 

Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in Paragraph 38 of Report No DEV/WS/23/025.

 

Speaker:      John Edwards (neighbouring resident objector, speaking on behalf of himself and other fellow residents in Tasman Road) spoke against the application

Robert Smith (neighbouring resident objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Tony Brown (Ward Member: Haverhill South East) spoke against the application

                   (Mr Smith was not present at the meeting in order to address the Committee, instead the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on his behalf)

 

Considerable discussion took place on the application, with a number of Members raising concerns principally in relation to the parking provision and the impact of the scheme on neighbouring amenity; in view of the property being within a relatively small residential cul-de-sac.

 

Whilst comments were also made on the outside amenity space of the property in question, it was recognised that the premises could be used as a domestic residential property and the residents would have access to the same outside amenity space. It was further appreciated that the outside space could be amended/improved and that did not require planning permission.

 

A number of questions were posed in relation to safeguarding and the regulations required to operate a residential children’s home.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this was not a Material Planning Consideration and did not form part of the application before the Committee.

 

Councillor Phil Wittam proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to the Committee’s concerns in relation to parking and the amount of amenity space for the intended residents. This was duly seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.

 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked and the motion would be ‘minded to’ and subject to the production of a Risk Assessment for future consideration by the Committee.

 

This would also enable Officers to seek a further response from the Highways Authority, in relation to the specific concerns raised by Members in relation to vehicle movements and parking.

 

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion, 4 against and with 1 abstention, it was resolved that

 

Decision

 

Members be MINDED TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, due to the Committee’s concerns in relation to parking and insufficient amenity space for the intended residents. A Risk Assessment would therefore be produced for consideration by the Committee at a future meeting.

 

(On conclusion of this item and Part A of the meeting, the Chair permitted a short interval before commencing Part B of the meeting. During the interval Councillor Jim Thorndyke left the meeting at 1.15pm.)

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: