Agenda item

Proposal:  Proposed supported living accommodation comprising construction of new building comprising of 12 self-contained 1-bedroom apartments (use class C3) for specialised independent supported living with associated external works and car parking.

Site address 86-88 Front Street, East, Bedlington, Northumberland, NE22 5AB.

Proposed supported living accommodation comprising construction of new building comprising of 12 self-contained 1-bedroom apartments (use class c3) for specialised independent supported living with associated external works and car parking

86 - 88 Front Street East, Bedlington, Northumberland, NE22 5AB

R Soulsby, Planning Officer provided an introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation.  He advised of an amendment to made to paragraph 2.4 of the report which referred to previous planning applications and advised that it should only refer to application 17/02932/FUL.

A Hogg, addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of West Bedlington Town Council in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       The suggested parking places, behind the former Council Offices and using the public spaces behind the Laird's House, were totally inadequate and highlighted the pre-pandemic proposals for the redevelopment of the Council Offices.

·       The woefully inadequate number of on-site parking spaces, just 4 spaces outdoors and a further 3 underneath the building all for 12 apartments. There were also the support staff to consider, social care, nurses, doctors, visiting relatives etc, by the very nature of this facility it would automatically generate a large number of vehicle journeys.

·       There was no dedicated provision for ambulance parking therefore they would need to park on double yellow lines.

·       Problems would also be exacerbated on refuse collection days.

·       If residents were wheel chair bound where was their access from whatever form of transport they arrived in. Parking to the rear, spaces permitting, was probably not practical, the lift was accessed internally so the obvious choice would mean parking on the main road on double yellow lines to access the front entrance. This was also the narrowest part of Front Street East.

·       The size of the building was considerable and was within the Conservation Area and was not supported by the Building Conservation Officer.

·       Properties to the rear could be adversely affected by loss of light, particularly 1 & 2 Perry Stone Mews and 4 Vicarage Gardens and of the windows at the rear of the building would also overlook these properties.

·       There had been no information provided on the specific type of support to be provided by the end user.

·       The Town Council asked that the application be refused for the reasons stated.  It was the wrong development for the location.

T Foster and K Pimblott addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  Their comments included the following:-

·       The concerns raised by the Town Council had been addressed.  Highways had advised that the parking provision was adequate.

·       The size of the proposed building had not increased over the previously approved application with the number of windows and doors also the same.

·       There would be no increased adverse impact over what had previously been approved.

·       There was a proven demand for this type of development with 3,000 vulnerable adults in Northumberland and work had been undertaken with the Adult Social Care Team in relation to the design to provide fit for purpose accommodation which would help to improve care and relieve budget pressures.

·       The development would provide wider benefits such as employment both through the construction period and care facility and bring back into use a brownfield site.

·       This application was an uplift from the previously approved 11 bedroomed scheme and would not increase the size of the overall development.

·       The style of the building remained the same and would use the same high quality materials as previously approved.

·       The use of a brownfield site which currently was a gap on the street would enhance the street scene and was encouraged by policies and would not be detrimental to any heritage assets.

·       Parking would be concealed and had been assessed as adequate.

·       Whilst the Building Conservation Officer’s comments were noted, the planning balance outweighed any harm and would provide much needed accommodation and employment.

·       The development would reinstate a frontage on the brownfield site.

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

·       The proposed changes were for minor external amendments and internal alterations in response to the additional need identified.

·       There were 4 parking spaces to the rear of the building and 3 below and were expected to be utilised by staff. It was expected that future occupiers of the building would not be car owners and would rely on sustainable transport.

·       Parking was restricted on Perry Stone Mews, however there were no restrictions on Front Street East which could be used for taxi pick up/drop off.

·       The entrance to Perry Stone Mews was highlighted as being to right of the proposed development.

Councillor Flux proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Ferguson.

Whilst Members expressed sympathy for the concerns raised by some in respect of parking in the area it was considered that the extra one bedroom over that already permitted would not have an impact on parking or traffic and would not stand up as a reason for refusal if the applicant should appeal.

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as follows:- FOR 6; AGAINST 1; ABSTAIN 0.

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.

Councillor Taylor returned to the room at this point.