Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

CC/19/01286/FUL - Abbas Combe Nursing Home, 93 And 94 Whyke Road, Chichester, West Sussex

Demolition of existing care home and detached bungalow, construction of new 55 bed care home.

 

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Miss Taylor introduced the application.

 

Additional information was provided on the Update Agenda Sheet regarding further comments from WSCC as the highways authority clarifying information in relation to the pedestrian infrastructure, that correspondence had been received from the agent agreeing to the pre-commencement conditions, that Longdale Avenue, should read Langdale Avenue, and an amendment to the Decided Plans Table.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Gary Abraham – Objector

Mrs Helen Dodd – Objector

Mr Adrian Kearley – On Applicant’s Behalf

 

During the discussion Members debated whether the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the plot, which was confirmed by Miss Taylor to have been reduced in size during negotiations with officers.  Members further discussed the description of the model of the operation of the home which seemed to be both a nursing home and also cater for residents who were cared for under the support of an elderly, mentally and infirm (EMI) establishment.  Further matters debated included limited sunlight into the building and outside areas, the potential for basement being lower than the water table and conditions for employees working in the basement.  Mr Whitty explained the proposed use of the development would be classed as C2 in planning terms, and the operation of the home was not a planning matter and similarly any potential issues with the basement or working within the basement was not a planning matter.  The current buildings had C2 use, and the new development would be an improvement upon the existing buildings.  Officers also considered that the impact on neighbours of the replacement development would be reduced in comparison with the current buildings and the level of separation was acceptable.  Mr Whitty also responded to the Chairman’s request for clarification regarding overshadowing, confirming it would be reduced in the summer when the sun was higher and there would be a degree of overshadowing in the winter.

 

Members further debated the shortage of residential homes in the area, the size of the building, the relationship with neighbours and the design of the roof. Mr Whitty confirmed that officers’ considered the relationship with neighbours would be improved as the new development would be further away from neighbouring properties in comparison with the current building, although there would clearly be some impact on the amenity of neighbouring gardens. 

 

Members further debated parking standards associated with C2 use, the proximity to the A27, the ownership of the tree belt, potential impact of ventilation units on neighbours, and the financial viability of operating such a home related to the number of beds required for sustainability.  Mr Whitty responded that the case being made by the applicant was related to the necessary size of the proposed home for financial sustainability.  The tree belt was in the ownership of the highway authority, protection measures for the trees was required during construction, but the trees may be impacted upon depend on future A27 development, and the development was considered acceptable with or without the trees.  A condition provided the requirements for the general ventilation, and the ventilation required during cooking activities, could be added to the conditions.

 

Members further discussed the mitigation of any noise generated, controls on the deliveries to the site and whether officers could provide a plan relating to the A27 and the existing trees.  Mr Whitty confirmed that such a plan was not available, and there may or may not be impact on the trees, although it was acceptable for the trees to be removed. 

 

Members further discussed traffic generated by the free-school, egress to and from the site, and whether bollards were required at the entrance to prevent motorcycles, and planting of two trees for each one which might be removed.  Mr Whitty confirmed that with regards to deliveries, there was not evidence of harm that would support a restriction to be outside school delivery and collection times, and that it was more usual to condition the request not have deliveries during unsociable hours.  The planting of two trees for one removed, was a minimum as appropriate and bollards would not be installed due concerns from neighbours to the north, and there was unlikely to be issues with motorcycles.  Mr Whitty further confirmed that significant negotiation had taken place over a long period of time with the applicant.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed with following new and amended conditions;

 

1.      Amendment to condition 8 to include submission of details of the siting of and noise transference mitigation details of ventilation for cooking facilities and for attenuated mechanical ventilation of rooms due to the requirement to keep windows fixed shut.

2.      New condition (30) requiring operational delivery times to be restricted (to ensure protection for neighbours during antisocial hours)

Mr McAra left the meeting.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page