Agenda item

Refusal

The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speaker

Jo Kemp (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site, including visuals provided by the applicant.  She also displayed the masterplan and phasing plan for the wider site.  She recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor D Baker, a local Member, spoke in support of this application.  He considered that the economic benefits of the proposal outweighed any other considerations.  There was a need for care home facilities to provide for an aging population which was growing, and 263 additional care/nursing homes would be required in the District by 2028.  The care home would provide at least 60 skilled full time jobs and would also benefit external local service providers.  He considered that the applicant had addressed the concerns regarding scale and massing, and the proposed building had been moved further back from the roundabout.  The proposal would kick-start the development of the industrial estate.

Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, a local Member, endorsed Councillor Baker’s comments.  There was a demonstrable need for care home facilities in North Norfolk and specifically a shortage of beds in the Holt area for people with dementia.  She considered that any concerns could be dealt with by planning conditions.  She referred to the NPPF and Local Plan policy considerations in respect of economic development. She stated that design had to comply with the Care Quality Commission requirements to meet the needs of elderly and vulnerable residents and that form and function needed to be balanced in the application of policy EN4.  She considered that the design was of high quality and reflected the local vernacular.  She considered that the economic and social need presented a compelling reason to reject the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor N Lloyd considered that there was insufficient parking provision for visitors.  He was not convinced that the applicants had addressed issues of scale and bulk, but they had worked with Officers to make some amendments to the design.  He welcomed the use of sustainable technology but considered that in addition, solar panels should be installed on the southern elevation.  He supported the application as there was a need for the facility.  However, he was concerned at the type of business that might be attracted to the unallocated land to the south.

Councillor R Kershaw stated that he understood the need for this form of accommodation but had concerns regarding the siting.   He considered that the amenity land should be sited to the south of the building and expressed concerns that the windows to the north would be fixed, there was no crossing provision for elderly people to get to the town, and that if dementia patients were to be housed in the building, the A148 was busy and the estate road would also become busier over time.  He was concerned that residents would become isolated and there was a need to engage with older people for their wellbeing.  He proposed refusal of this application as recommended.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett referred to the recent loss of a large care home in High Kelling.  She shared concerns regarding wellbeing and non-opening windows, but considered that the benefits in this case outweighed the objections.

Councillor P Heinrich understood the need for improved care facilities.  However he considered that the proposed building was nondescript and did not sit well in the landscape.  He considered that the applicant should be requested to improve the site layout, landscaping and amenity areas within the site.  He had concerns as to whether the care home would boost local employment as it was difficult for care homes to get staff.  Staff would be likely to need to travel to the site by car due to the lack of public transport and he considered that the parking provision was inadequate. He was concerned that the proposal would generate more low income, insecure employment rather than good quality jobs which were needed in the area.

Councillor N Pearce referred to the need to protect amenities, the AONB and heritage of the area.  He considered that the siting of a three storey block on a roundabout was not appropriate.  He stated that he was undecided with regard to the proposal but had concerns regarding the number of car parking spaces.

Councillor A Brown seconded the proposal to refuse this application.  He considered that it was the wrong location, the proposed building was overbearing in terms of its height in relation to the adjacent residential buildings, and he had concerns regarding traffic and the location of landscaping and car parking areas.  He considered the applicant’s comments regarding benefits to the elderly of viewing traffic to be spurious.

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.