Agenda item

SB/20/00525/FUL - Prinsted Care Home, Prinsted Lane, Prinsted, Southbourne, PO10 8HR

Construction of 2 no. annexes.





Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members. 


Mrs Stevens began by providing a verbal update in which she explained that when sending out the committee invitation letters, an initial notification letter had been forwarded to some neighbouring properties and as a result, the publicity expiry date was now not until the 30th November 2020.  Due to this error it would not be possible determine the application at the Committee meeting and consequently the recommendation was amended to delegate the application to officers for determination.  Should this be agreed by the Committee, officers would consider any further representations received, and a decision would not be taken until the publicity period had expired.


The Committee received the following speakers:


Amanda Tait – Parish Council

Anthony Morrow – Objector

Robert Hayes – Objector

Sarah Richardson – Objector (statement read)

Tracie Bangert – Ward Councillor


Mrs Stevens responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to nitrates, Mrs Stevens advised that this was not an issue for this application as there would not be increase in the number of residents at the care home, which was currently and would continue to be conditioned as a total of 44.  Double rooms were being used as single rooms, as residents sharing rooms had decreased.  Therefore, the number of residents was less than the limit of 44 and the application would allow each of the 44 rooms to be occupied by one resident.  


In reference to comments made by the Planning Committee in 2008, Mr Whitty advised that the Planning Committee could not make policy, and therefore any comments made, were not a material consideration and similarly neither was the number of applications for a site.  Mr Whitty added that Committee must focus on identifying any potential harm caused by an application.


With regards to the garden area, Mrs Stevens responded that the amenity area would be reduced in size, but the application would provide a residential block with doors opening onto the garden.   On the question of residents occupying the proposed block, having to walk to the main building for meals and other activities, Mr Whitty responded that this was not a planning matter.


Mr Barrett made a proposal that further information was sought and brought back to the Committee, which was seconded by Rev Bowden.  Mr Whitty iterated that the number of residents was conditioned to 44 which would be enforceable.   Mr Whitty added that delivery times to the site were not currently restricted, but that a Travel Plan could be investigated.  Mr Whitty sought clarification regarding the further information the Committee would require, and Members cited the extended consultation period which could bring forward further consultee comments.  Mr Whitty advised that the extension of the consultation period was the result of an administrative error, as explained by Mrs Stevens and a full consultation period had previously ended, which had produced the submission of a number of comments.  Mr Whitty however confirmed that it was the prerogative of the Committee to request that the application was returned to a further meeting, but reminded the Committee, it was not unusual for it to delegate the determination of an application to officers. 


Mr Barrett proposed a deferral to the end of the further extended consultation period, and for the application to be brought back to the Committee for determination.  In a vote Members did not agree to bring the application back to the Committee. 


Mr Whitty confirmed that the investigation of a Travel Plan would be added to the recommendation.


In a vote Members agreed the revised recommendation. 


Recommendation to delegate to officers for determination.


Supporting documents: