PRESENT:  Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman), Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winkless.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey and Philippa Davies.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott and Adrian Crowther.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair for this meeting) welcomed the applicant, Minster Parish Council representative and members of the public to the meeting.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which was for the conversion of part of the existing garage to an accessible bedroom and en-suite, with dayroom, as an ancillary use to the main building, to also include a utility room.  One of the two car ports would be in-filled, an external wall to the front elevation and an internal wall would be constructed.  There would be two rooflights on the southern roof slope and one on the northern roof slope.  The Area Planning Officer explained that a Lawful Development Certificate had been issued for the use of the dwelling house as a residential care home for six people.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Minster Parish Council had objected to the application.  Their views, along with the views included within six letters of objection were outlined in the 12 March 2015 Planning Committee report.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the plans for the existing garage were acceptable, as the use was as an ancillary to the main dwelling.  He explained that a window to the southern elevation had been deleted, and replaced with a rooflight.  The Area Planning Officer considered the garage was not in a prominent public vantage point, the proposals were of a small scale nature and would not have an adverse effect on local residents.  He also explained that it would not harm the amenity of local residents; the traffic generated would not be significant; there was sufficient parking on site, and he stated there were no planning objections to the application.

The applicant advised that the parking area would be extended on the site, sufficient for the use of the site and there would be no parking on the road.  She explained that the clients would be involved within the local community and make use of the local facilities.  The applicant further explained that the utility room would be for the use of the six residents, there would be two washing machines and one tumble dryer.  She explained that she had tried to take account of neighbours’ comments throughout the process.

The Minster Parish Council representative explained that the Parish Council considered the conversion of the garage to be a step too far.  They had welcomed the community project, but suggested the clients would be isolated at this location. The representative also considered that the amenity and privacy of local residents would be affected, specifically from any noise nuisance near the boundary; he stated that the annex was too close to the boundary of other properties.

Local residents raised the following points:  drainage relating to the application will go across neighbouring properties; drainage had been constructed in an amateur way; concern that there would be other members of staff, such as cleaners and cooks at the premises; there was no amenity area for the clients on the site; poor drainage in the area, with water running down the lane; pipes were inadequate; the foundations of the garage were inadequate; the surrounding area was not suitable for the clients with potential dangers of a nearby pond; traffic, with bends in the road and the cliff side; this was not humane; noise would be generated from the utility room and day room, suggest this use be installed in the main house instead; there was only a 15 foot patio between the annex and neighbouring property; the day room would generate a lot of noise, as would noise from the outside space; and acknowledge rights for clients to live in the community, but this was too close to other properties.

In response to the queries raised, the applicant advised that the family group within the house had a right to live in the community, this was not being run on an institutional basis; and allocated carers engaged with the clients with everyday cooking and cleaning, so no additional staff would be at the property.  The applicant explained that all 12 people on the site were unlikely to be out in the garden at one time, they would be engaging in individual activities.  She considered any noise generated from the site would be comparable to that from a family.

The Area Planning Officer advised that he would look further into the drainage of the site prior to the Planning Committee meeting on 2 April 2015.

Members then toured the site and adjoining property with officers.