Agenda item

Application for Determination:

Conversion of care home into 18no residential units comprising 15 x 2bed and 3 x 1 bed (as amended).

Officer Report

The Planning Manager presented the report detailing an applicatio­­n for the conversion of a care home into 18no residential units comprising 15 x 2 bed & 3 x 1 bed.

Public Speeches

A Planning Agent addressed the Committee in favour of the application.

He stated that the application should be granted on the following grounds:

·       The prior concern raised by the Local Ward Member regarding the proposed external stair tower had been addressed, and the proposal would omit it entirely.

·       The Conservation Officer no longer raised any objections to the scheme and believed that the application would not harm the character and appearance of the Denmark Road Conservation Area.

·       There would be a mix of dwellings.

·       Outdoor amenity space was being provided for 12 of the 18 dwellings, and balconies were being provided for 5 of the dwellings.

Members' Questions

The Planning Development Manager responded to members' questions

concerning the Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA), concerns about why affordable housing was not being provided, apprehensions about the Conservation Officer’s comments, whether there had been a viability assessment that led to the conclusion that it qualified for Vacant Building Credit (as it had been occupied up until 2023), whether the working hours during the construction phase were standard, more details about the proposed gravel mesh, and whether the property had been on the market as follows:

·       The report referred to the non-designated heritage asset a couple of times. It was referenced in paragraph 6.13 of the officer’s report.

·       The building itself was not a non-designated heritage asset, so limited weight should be attached to that as a material planning consideration.

·       The Case Officer concluded that the building qualified for Vacant Building Credit, and this conclusion was agreed upon by the Housing Strategy Team.

·       The Conservation Officer was now satisfied. The Officer was not a statutory consultee. The Conservation Officer had concerns with the roof but raised no overall objection.

·       The Case Officer had thoroughly reviewed the scheme and concluded that it qualified for Vacant Building Credit, with agreement from the Housing Strategy Team. Vacant Building Credit was introduced to prevent brownfield and vacant buildings from remaining unoccupied, and that was a key consideration.

·       The proposed construction hours were standard; however, members could propose a later start time if they deemed it reasonable to impose a condition.

·       His understanding was that there would be a grid system with gravel contained within each section of the mesh, preventing the migration of the material and the movement of surface water.

·       He was unsure whether the property had been on the market. However, there was an assessment included in the Planning Statement.

Members’ Debate

Councillor Harries stated that he was content to support the application but would propose an amendment to condition 12 to change the Saturday construction times from 7:30am–1pm to 9am–2pm.

The Planning Development Manager noted that he did not believe this would be an unreasonable request, if members wished to condition a change in construction hours on Saturday.

Councillor Lewis stated that he believed it might be more appropriate to change the working hours to 7am–1pm for Saturdays.

Councillor A. Chambers said that his biggest issue with the application was the omission of affordable housing. However, he stated that, on balance, he would support the application as housing was needed in the City of Gloucester.

Councillor S. Chambers expressed disappointment that no affordable housing would be provided and sought further clarity on whether the dwelling qualified for Vacant Building Credit.

The Locum Planning Lawyer noted that Vacant Building Credit was a government policy to encourage the development of existing vacant buildings and could not be overridden. She further noted that some local authorities had their own guidance with stricter requirements for qualifying for Vacant Building Credit, but Gloucester did not currently have such guidance.

Councillor S. Chambers noted that the property had not been unoccupied for long and questioned whether there was a method to verify if it qualified for Vacant Building Credit. She asked if a viability assessment could be requested from the applicant. In response, the Planning Development Manager stated that providing a viability assessment was at the applicant's discretion.

Councillor S. Chambers expressed concern that other schemes required affordable housing, while the one before the Committee did not.

Councillor Lewis stated that he understood the concerns raised by members but believed that the officer’s judgement—that the site qualified for Vacant Building Credit—was sound, and he would support the application on balance.

Councillor Harries proposed amending condition 12 of the officer’s report to stipulate that work would take place between 8am and 1pm. This was seconded by Councillor A. Chambers. The vote carried.

The Vice-Chair proposed, and Councillor Lewis seconded, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application with an amendment to condition 12.

The Decision

RESOLVED that planning decision is GRANTED subject to the conditions outlined in the officer report with an amendment to condition 12 to stipulate that no works would carry outside of the hours of 8am – 1pm on Saturdays.