Agenda item

Outline application seeking approval for access for construction of two storey 58 bed care home and associated but physically separate single storey 12 bedroom specialist unit with associated parking and hard and soft landscaping

Essendene, Kenilworth Road, Ashington, Northumberland

NE63 8AR

Outline application seeking approval for access for construction of two storey 58 bed care home and associated but physically separate single storey 12 bedroom specialist unit with associated parking and hard and soft landscaping

Essendene, Kenilworth Road, Ashington, Northumberland

NE63 8AR

R Laughton, Senior Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation.  Updates were provided as follows:-

·       A late representation had been submitted by Northumberland County Council Adult Services who objected to the scheme and had raised issues with the report where it claimed there was an identified need in the area and in particular highlighted paragraph 7.2.  They stated “Although there was a need for independent supported living in the area for young adults with learning disabilities and potentially, although not yet identified need, for accommodation for older adults, there was no demonstrated need for residential care homes in the area.  The vacancy levels for the sector in the area were still high and data showed that the demand for institutional accommodation has remained flat over the preceding 5 years, while demand for care home and independent supported living had increased, suggesting substitution in the market. This data was supported by a report produced on the residential care home market. There was land that could potentially be utilised for this type of accommodation, however there was no current demand and it was anticipated that choice in the future would remain for independent living.  Any new facility could potentially de-stabilise the current market and prevent users going to existing facilities and leading to their closures.  At this time we would not support any application for residential or nursing care home in the area.

·       A further objection received from a local resident raised concerns regarding the possibility of a care home being built on the site which had been earmarked for the extension to the car park for the station as the current levels of car parking were insufficient to sustain any increase in traffic and growth of Ashington. The car park was essential to the smooth running of the station and was the only viable option for the public to continue to use Ashington’s facilities.

·       The reference to Policy TRA5 should be removed from refusal reason 1 as the policy had not been fully adopted and the plan can only be afforded limited weight.

R Murfin, Interim Executive Director advised that whilst multiple applications for a site was not a material consideration, these circumstances were different.  Whilst the Local Planning Authority was not there to stifle competition, there was an issue as this site was protected by policy and this had been a deliberate step taken to safeguard the land for the opening of the Northumberland Line, therefore the normal general approach did not come into play.

Councillor C Ball addressed the Committee speaking as the local Ward Member.  Her comments included the following:--

·       She had been shocked, surprised and disappointed to see this application on the agenda.

·       She was 100% against anything that would stop the development or stood in the way of the reopening of the Northumberland Line, but asked if this application be anything but approved if it was not ear marked for car parking for the new station.

·       This application was for a state of the art care home on a site of a former care home which would create jobs and specialist care.  The County had an aging population and a need for this kind of facility and this would not have been recommended for refusal in any other circumstances.

·       She believed it was a failure that this application was before the Committee when spades in the ground were expected within a matter of weeks and everyone who sat on the Committee had been put in a difficult position to decide the fate of the project and an application that they would normally be asked to support.

·       She was saddened that this situation had not been settled before today as she could not see how anyone could refuse this application and hope that any decision made did not have a knock on effect to the future opening of the trainline or any delay due to any appeal process.

Councillor Ball took no further part in the determination of this application.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, the following information was provided:-

·       Any person could submit a planning application for any land at any time and a would require a decision to be made.  All decisions made were on policy grounds.

·       In respect of the chronology of the two applications being submitted, the context was that the consultation and discussions about the location for the station were taking place when this application was made, but Members were asked to not put any weight on this chronology.  The application had not been straightforward and in this instance the site had not been allocated for any particular use in the existing development plans.  There had been delays in agreeing technical issues on this application and there was now a clear intention of the use of the site and more weight could now be given to the safeguarding policy as the Northumberland Local Plan became nearer to adoption. 

·       The safeguarding in this instance was an unusual policy and different to more generic policies such as development in the green belt where compliance would be weighed up against other considerations. This site was the subject of specific safeguarding policy both in the Wansbeck Local Plan and the Northumberland Local Plan in respect of this piece of land.  As the application would fail at the first reason for refusal, it was not reasonable to push the applicant to incur costs in providing the information which was required in the second reason for refusal.

·       Further clarification was provided on the timeline for the submission of adequate information related to highways.   This application was validated on the 15.2.21 and Highways issued their response on the 15.3.21 requesting further details and no further submissions in respect of this application were received until October 2021 which followed this Committee’s decision on the station application in September 2021.  There had been no work done specifically in relation to this site with information submitted being carried out for a different site.

·       Whilst the Adult Services response had advised that there was no requirement for this type of provision, this would not have been a reason for refusal and the information had been provided for transparency reasons.

·       All applications had the right of appeal.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Flux.   A vote was on the proposal to refuse as follows:- FOR 10: AGAINST 0; ABSTENSIONS 2.

Councillor Ball re-joined the meeting.