Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/16/011

Erection of retirement living housing for the elderly (29 No. units), part one-and-a-half / part two-and-a-half / part single storeys, including communal facilities, landscaping and car parking (demolition of existing buildings), as amended.

Erection of retirement living housing for the elderly (29 No. units), part one-and-a-half / part two-and-a-half / part single storeys, including communal facilities, landscaping and car parking (demolition of existing buildings), as amended.

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Andrew Appleby, one of the Ward Members for the Severals Ward. 

In addition, Officers were recommending that the application be approved as set out in Paragraph 125 of Report No DEV/FH/16/011, which was contrary to the views expressed by Newmarket Town Council.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting. 

The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects, as part of his presentation, drew attention to Paragraph 93 of the report which outlined the number of measures the applicant had taken to address the concerns raised by neighbours and to reduce the impact of the development upon them.

For the benefit of the Committee the Officer also made reference to Paragraphs 11 – 15 of the report and clarified the position of the Highway Authority.  In that, they had initially objected to the application but following an amended (reduced) scheme and further information from the applicant they had withdrawn these objections, subject to the inclusion of conditions which were listed in the recommendation within the report.

The Officer advised Members of the following updates since publication of the agenda:

1.   An additional objection had been received from the residents of neighbouring Albion Lodge which included reference to previously raised issues such as noise, drainage and road safety;

2.   The outstanding response from Suffolk County Council’s Flood and Water Management team had been received (as made reference to in Paragraphs 16 and 17); who confirmed that they considered the application to be acceptable and did not object subject to the inclusion of a condition, which was listed in the recommendation within the report; and

3.   There was a typographical error in Paragraph 118.  The sentence midway through the paragraph should read “…based on an assumption it will not be decreased…” as opposed to increased.

Subsequently, Members were also informed of the following amendments to the recommendation in Paragraph 125:

1.   Removal of the reference to the outstanding confirmation from the Flood and Water Management team at the beginning of the recommendation together with Roman numeral (iii.);

2.   Removal of Roman numeral (ii.) with regard to public open space, as this was not relevant; and

3.   The inclusion of an additional condition to restrict the occupancy of the development to individuals aged 55 and over (due to the reduced parking provision).

Councillor Ruth Allen spoke against the application and moved that the Committee be minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to:

i.     Insufficient parking and the impact on highway safety;

ii.    Overdevelopment of the site;

iii.   The development was out of keeping of the character in the area due to its size and three storey height; and

iv.  The loss of mature trees. 

This was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Lynch.

Councillor David Bowman spoke in support of the application and made reference to the lack of retirement properties currently within Newmarket.  He moved that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation.

The Service Manager (Planning - Development) explained that the Highways Authority had not objected to the scheme.  Accordingly, if Members were minded to refuse the application for the reasons put forward by Councillor Allen then a risk assessment would have to be carried out for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee on 6 July 2016. 

The Chairman then put Councillor Allen’s motion to the vote and with 6 voting for, 5 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that:

Members were MINDED TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL due to:

i.     Insufficient parking and the impact on highway safety;

ii.    Overdevelopment of the site;

iii.   The development was out of keeping of the character in the area due to its size and three storey height; and

iv.  The loss of mature trees. 

Speakers:    Mrs Rogers (resident) spoke against the application.

                   Mr Neil Martyn (Agent) spoke in support of the application.