Planning Committee – 21 March 2013 (Special Meeting)
Chair: Councillor Bunyan
Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time: 2 pm
2. Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Personal and Personal and Prejudicial Interests, significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying) and Whipping Arrangements (if any).
3. Major Planning Application for Determination – PA/2013/0021 by North Lincolnshire Homes for the erection of 39 affordable dwellings and a community building and associated works including the demolition of 5 bungalows and De Lacy House off De Lacy Way, Winterton.
PRESENT: – Councillor Bunyan (in the Chair).
Councillors Bainbridge, Collinson, Davison, Eckhardt, England, Grant, Poole, Rowson and N Sherwood.
Councillors Marper and Ogg attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).
The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1504 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY) The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –
|Member (s)||Minute (s)||Application/Item (s)|
|Cllrs Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson and N Sherwood||1505||13/0021|
The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied: –
|Cllrs Marper and Ogg||1505||13/0021|
1505 (38) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION – 13/0021 by Mr M Phillips, North Lincolnshire Homes for the erection of 39 affordable dwellings and a community building, construction of a vehicular access, car parking, boundary treatment and external lighting and re-alignment of Fowler Court (including the demolition of 5 bungalows and De Lacy House land at De Lacy Way, Stovin Crescent, Winterton) on land at De Lacy House, Stovin Crescent and Fowler Court, Winterton. – The Head of Development Management submitted a report containing details of a major application for determination by the committee including a summary of policy context representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications. In accordance with Procedure Rule D1.34 (i) (a), members had previously undertaken a site visit. The Head of Development Management updated the report orally. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.
Prior to consideration of this application five objectors, the applicant and the applicant’s architect addressed the committee.
The first objector stated that Winterton Town Council had applied for De Lacy House to be registered as a Community Asset. It wanted to develop an alternative respite and re-enablement facility on the site. The local community supported the retention of De Lacy House. She would support the element of the application on “Site A”, the site of the former Nassau House, only. She was concerned at what she considered to be inadequate consultation by the applicants. She did not consider that private sector companies provided a similar level of care to that at De Lacy House.
The second objector was a member of the Winterton Senior Citizen’s Forum. He was concerned at the lack of consultation by the applicants and by the council. De Lacy House was a unique, purpose – built facility that had suffered from a lack of investment for a number of years but still had the potential to meet the needs of an increasingly ageing local population.
The third objector was a member of the local disabled club. She too referred to an inadequate level of consultation. She emphasised the need for a 24 hour care facility in the town.
The fourth objector referred to the high standard of care provided at De Lacy house, as evidenced by an inspection report in 2010. However provision had been wound down over the years. He also referred to inadequate consultation on the proposal.
The final objector was a retired consultant. He stressed the need for a residential care centre in a town the size of Winterton. De Lacy House had not only been a residential care home, it had also been a community facility with links to all age groups. The present proposal would not meet the future needs of the people of Winterton.
The applicant’s agent stated that the development would be of great benefit to Winterton providing new affordable, energy efficient homes. Consultation had been undertaken with all residents that were directly affected. Additional car parking would be created. The site was in a sustainable location close to a bus route and community facilities. Care to residents in the complex would be provided by the council’s Adult Services. The community building would be available to all Winterton residents and not just those living on the site. As much of the material from De Lacy House as possible would be recycled rather than landfilled. Most of the existing trees and shrubs on site would be retained. The statutory consultees were satisfied with the design of the development.
The applicant stated that the proposal was an opportunity to replace out of date accommodation with modern and appropriate accommodation. It would help to enable older people to continue to live in their own homes for as long as possible. All dwellings would be equipped with wet rooms and wheelchair access. The two specialist homes for disabled people would be fully wheelchair accessible. There was also a family accommodation element. The community building would be designed to provide ease of access. The development would attract £900,000 of funding from the Homes and Communities Agency. Local labour would be used for the construction of the community building.
Councillors Marper and Ogg, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on the application.
Moved by Councillor Bainbridge and seconded by Councillor Collinson –
That consideration of the application be deferred to allow the local community to put forward an alternative scheme for the De Lacy House site.
Moved by Councillor N Sherwood and seconded by Councillor England –
That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(Note: The voting being equal on the above matter, the Chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion).