Application for Determination
Proposed change of use from a care home (Use Class C2) to 5 no. 4 bedroom residential units (Use Class C3) including associated alterations to the building and changes to access and parking.
The Principal Planning Officer presented the application, detailing an application for a change of use from a care home (Use Class C2) to 5 no. 4-bedroom residential units (Use Class C3), including associated alterations to the building and changes to access and parking.
Councillor Hilton addressed the Committee regarding concerns he had with the application in its current format.
- He supported the application for a change of use as Kingsholm and Wotton had numerous care facilities.
- He agreed with the Conservation Officer about the matter of retaining UPVC windows. He was glad that the applicant had amended their plans in accordance with this.
- He supported the car parking at the front of the building but was concerned about the revised plans for car parking at the back of the building. This was because it took away green space that could have improved biodiversity.
- He believed it was wrong to change the parking provisions because of the Civic Trust and Conservation Officer's determination that there should not be car parking at the front of the building, noting that other dwellings on Denmark Road had parking at the front.
- He hoped that the application would receive determination but hoped that the applicant put in a fresh application in the futureto amend the car parking situation.
The applicant addressed the Committee in favour of the application.
He stated that the application should be granted on the following grounds:
- The Officer had provided a comprehensive presentation that members could support.
- There had been a long, administrative process to get the application to a point where it could be supported by members and was thorough.
- The Parking provision was in line with the’ Conservation Officer's plans
- The last project the applicant was involved in was the Post House development near Barnwood Roundabout. This partially evidenced the quality of the designs the applicant was involved in.
The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions concerning whether Grass Crete permeable paving could be installed in the parking area, concerns raised about parking at the back rather than the front of the site, whether any social housing was proposed, whether there would be accessible dwellings, and who would be responsible for maintaining the gardens as follows:
- Regarding installing Grass Crete in the parking area, a similar proposal was considered at the front of the site which didn’t resolve conservation concerns. It would be possible to add a condition to any permission to secure further details of paving materials.
- One property would be built to M4(2) standard. This was an accessible and adaptable dwelling.
- The application was for family dwellings, not social housing.
- The issue surrounding parking at the front, instead of the back could not be dealt with via conditions.
- The owners of the properties would be responsible for maintaining their gardens.
The Highways Officer responded to Members’ questions concerning whether Grass Crete permeable paving could be installed in the parking area as follows:
- If parking at the rear of the property was accepted, grass crete could be installed, as a potential condition. This could have an environmentally positive impact.
- A smaller hardstanding area would be possible than shown on the plans.
The Chair noted that he agreed with concerns raised by Councillor Hilton. However, he stated that the application in front of them would add to the amount of Housing Stock in the City, which Gloucester required. He stated that he wished to see a condition worked in, regarding potentially installing Grass Crete permeable paving. He noted that the gardens were not particularly large but that he was satisfied that residents would have outdoor amenity space.
Councillor Sawyer noted that she agreed with Councillor Hilton’s objections regarding parking at the rear of the property and she questioned whether it was worth considering deferring the application.
The Vice-Chair noted that he was surprised that anyone wished to see parking at the front of the property. He said that Denmark Road was a busy road and that it was far safer for vehicles to back onto Alexandra Road. He stated that he would support the officer recommendation.
The Chair moved, and the Vice-Chair seconded the Officer’s recommendation to delegate authority to the Planning Development Manager to determine the application, with an additional condition to be added in relation to conditioning design and materials of the parking area to the rear.
RESOLVED – that determination of the application was delegated to the Planning Development Manager to grant permission subject to the conditions outlined the officer report with an additional condition to be included in relation to conditioning design and materials of the parking area to the rear.