RM

DECISION: REFUSE (PLANNING PERMISSION)

The Planning Committee had visited the site which was a full application (recommended to delegate subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement) to erect a 64-bed care home (Use Class C2) over two storeys to include landscaping, access and car parking.  The site was a brownfield site owned by East Sussex County Council (ESCC), which was allocated for housing with care (Use Class C3) under Policy WES2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.  The site lay to the north-east of the village, on the north-western side of the A28 (Main Road). It was located within the development boundary for Westfield and the High Weald National Landscape, also designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site previously contained a detached two storey building dating from the Victorian era, which was last in use as a residential care home. Previous planning permission to develop the site with the erection of a 48-bed residential care unit was not implemented, and the site was subsequently cleared of buildings and had remained vacant for many years.

The development would not provide any affordable housing and as such, would not comply with the Council’s development plan and would undermine the provision of Westfield’s identified housing need. However, it was the officer’s view that in this case, the Applicant had demonstrated that there were material considerations to justify the determination of the application other than in accordance with the development plan.  It was noted that since the site visit, ESCC Highway Authority had acknowledged that the footway on the east side of the main road was narrow, mainly as a result of overgrown vegetation which could be removed through maintenance carried out by East Sussex Highways.  The developer would need to contact East Sussex Highways and request that the existing footway be improved prior to occupation of the development, to ensure that the surface was returned to the maximum width available.

The Planning Committee heard from the Clerk to Westfield Parish Council, who was objecting to the scheme; the clerk also provided commentary from the local GP practice manager. The Planning Committee then heard from the Agent, the Development Director and Head of Healthcare Frontier Estates, the Operator and the local Ward Member, who was also a Westfield Parish Councillor.  Consideration was also given to the comments made by the statutory and non-statutory bodies as detailed within the report.  

It was noted that all the residents in the current home (Whitegates Care Home, Westfield) would transfer to the new building, so whilst in total there were 64 beds, there would only be an additional 43 new residents.

Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues, including the impact on the local primary care provision that additional high-demand patients would create, car parking provision, proposed staffing levels and proposed local bus service and infrastructure improvements.  Members were surprised to note that the local Clinical Commissioning Group had not responded to the consultation.           

Whilst Members were impressed with the ethos and track record of the proposed operator, Greensleeves Care, they felt unable to support the development in the proposed location at Westfield.  The proposal would take away the last major site in Westfield for development to meet local needs rather than meeting the needs of the whole district.     

At this point of the debate, the Chair adjourned the meeting to consider reasons for refusal, which were confirmed as follows: 

The Planning Committee resolved to refuse this application, contrary to the officer's recommendation, on the grounds that it was contrary to Policy WES2 and detrimental to Westfield’s ability to meet its housing needs. Furthermore, the Planning Committee was not satisfied in regard to Policy OSS3 that it would not have a markedly adverse impact on the provision of primary care services to the village.

Councillor J. Barnes moved the motion to REFUSE (Planning Permission) and this was seconded by Councillor Mrs Barnes.  The motion was declared CARRIED (8 for / 3 against).

REASON FOR REFUSAL:

1.          The proposed care home development would be contrary to Policy WES2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019, which seeks to secure housing with care, and therefore would be detrimental to Westfield local area’s ability to meet its housing needs, as specified in the Development Plan. Furthermore, the proposed care home development would be contrary to Policy OSS3 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014, as it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not have a markedly adverse impact on the provision of primary care services to the village.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, it has not been possible to overcome all matters of concern and the reasons for this have been clearly set out in the reason for refusal, thereby allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider whether or not they can be remedied as part of a revised scheme.

(Councillor Coupar declared an Other Registerable Interest in this matter in so far as she was a Member of Westfield Parish Council and in accordance with the Member’s Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

(When it first became apparent, Councillor Field declared an Other Registerable Interest in so far as she was an elected non-Executive Member of East Sussex County Council and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, left the room during the consideration thereof).