Agenda item

Agenda item

APPLICATION NO. 40/2021/0309 - PLOT C7, ST ASAPH BUSINESS PARK, ST ASAPH

To consider an application for the erection of a 198 bed Registered Care Home (Use Class C2), landscaping, parking facilities and associated works (Resubmission) (copy attached)

 

 

Minutes:

An application was submitted for the erection of a 198 bed Registered Care Home (Use Class C2), landscaping, parking facilities and associated works (Resubmission) at Plot C7, St Asaph Business Park, St Asaph.

 

Public Speaker –

 

Mr Dylan Southern (For) – thanked the chair and members for being allowed to speak. Mr Southern said that we must ask ourselves as people of conscience did we ever mean for planning policy to allow an unfit care home structure in the county. Which allowed dependant older people to share amenities with numerous other people at very vulnerable times. He stated that more than 50% of care home residents currently would live in a room smaller than 12m2 and with some floors without accessible lifts, yet as a county £58 million of public funds was spent each year on this care structure which was not fit for purpose.

 

Mr Southern referred the site, with regards to amenities there had been comments that some people could feel isolated due to the location of the site. Most people who would use the site would be at a stage where self-care would become less likely, therefore the likelihood of needing nearby shops would diminish. However the site would have access to super-fast broadband and was in close proximity to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. These were key factors for the choice of site.

 

Mr Southern assured the committee that the noise assessment would comply with building standards and the central heating and air conditioning would create an adequate flow of air. The noise would also be monitored regularly.

 

Mr Southern stated that it could not be that an engineering solution could not be agreed to address the building temperature and windows.

 

Mr Southern understood that the committee had a difficult decision as the officers’ recommendation was to refuse alongside the planning policy guidelines, however Mr Southern felt that planning policy was never meant to be detrimental towards residents. Lastly it was requested that the committee gave a voice to vulnerable and granting the application.

 

General Debate –

 

Officers advised members on the background to the application, as it was a resubmission, the site had been refused previously. The site was within the St. Asaph business park LDP designation area. The area was mainly for B1 buildings, it was an allocated employment site.

 

  • The resubmission of the application was due to extensive work on the application on behalf of the applicant. The additional work had identified that there was no other suitable site for the proposed development. The site which the application was proposed to be developed onto a site which had been designated as employment land, however had been on sale for numerous years and there was no interested developers for the land.

 

  • Officers also highlighted that there were concerns of noise at the site due to the close proximity of an industrial B2 site and the A55 trunk road. These concerns would require the development to have un-openable windows, and this was not a compatible use with a C2 class building.

 

Councillor Ann Davies stated that the closure of the Royal Alexander has caused bed blocking in Glan Clwyd. Care at home has worked well for people with minimal care needs but the needs for caring has increased drastically. The application would free up beds in Glan Clwyd and allow people to choose their care.

 

Proposed – Councillor Ann Davies proposed the application be granted contrary to officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Brian Jones.

 

Councillor Joan Butterfield stated that there was a change to the demographics in the County, the population was aging. There was a need to look at the requirements of the community, people were being hospitalized and people need structured care, to re-able them to be able to go home. This application would alleviate ‘bed blocking’ the business plan seemed sound, and the providers had confidence that the plan would work.

 

The committee queried how much weight was put on the use of land in the LDP when determining the merits of the application. Concerns with the windows were also raised, and whether it would have a sufficient circulation of air.

 

Officers stated that the windows would be built to ensure they would not open to comply with noise pollution, therefore they would only be used for light. The site was an employment designated site however there had been no interest in the site for numerous years.

 

Officers informed the committee that if the application was granted, there would need to be conditions attached to the development to address the proposed location and noise related issues as well as ventilation, with conditions used to mitigate and manage that issue. It was felt due to the interest of the committee that the matter would come back to committee for a final decision with regards to conditions.

 

The Corporate Director: Communities (CDC) welcomed the interest in the provision for need and completely supported the officer recommendation to refuse. The CDC reported that the proposal did not provide appropriate levels of amenities. The use of the site was for people with low care needs. Welsh Government have set guidance for ventilation and the opening of windows, to which the application was not conforming to. The emotive discussions on need were not material planning matters. There were currently 100 beds available for those who need it in Denbighshire. There was currently an overprovision of care, with a shortage of staff available nationwide.

 

Councillor Brian Jones clarified the reasons for granting were that the close proximity to the A55 trunk road and the B2 site were not applicable, as noise mitigation was not an issue, as it could be overcome through planning conditions.

 

VOTE –

Grant – 13

Abstain –0

Against – 2

 

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED contrary to officer recommendations for the reasons set out above.

 

 

Supporting documents: