Issue - meetings

Proposal Description: Part demolition and part conversion of an existing C2 Care Home to three C3 residential dwellings, with the erection of five C3 residential dwellings, with associated access, landscaping and parking (Amended Plans).

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which detailed an amendment to the list of approved plans under Condition 2. It was noted that the reference to “Block Plan Proposed - Dwg No. P13 Rev C - Received 24/10/2025” was to be omitted from the condition.

It was noted that the committee had visited the application site on 10 March 2026 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

During public participation, Ben Duxbury spoke in objection to the application, and Chris Rees spoke in support of the application. Councillor Nathan Eve spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1. He stated that he and the residents supported the principle of the site being redeveloped, but he opposed the proposal in its current form due to specific concerns regarding the designs of plots six, seven, and eight.
2. He highlighted that the proposed buildings were higher than the existing structure, resulting in the overlooking of neighbouring properties to the rear, as the existing hedge line provided sparse cover during winter.
3. He felt that plots six and seven would have direct lines of sight into the living areas and gardens of numbers 5 and 6 Salcot Road, while plots six and eight would compromise the privacy of gardens at Lawn End and Holly House.
4. He noted that the existing care wing was mainly single-storey and designed to avoid overbearing impacts, whereas the proposed three-storey dwellings, such as plot eight, would cause a loss of privacy for existing residents.
5. He expressed concern over the lack of consultation by the developer and a lack of clarity in the submitted application, noting limited information on site levels and contextual details regarding existing residential properties.
6. He pointed out that residents believed the proposed section BB in appendix four did not reflect the slope between properties, noting a two-metre drop along the boundary with number 6 Salcot Road.
7. He argued that the overlooking and loss of privacy were contrary to local planning policy, which states that proposals should not have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties.
8. He urged the committee to refuse the proposal, but requested that if permission was granted, conditions for proper wall fencing and mature landscaping be implemented to mitigate the effects of the development.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet subject to an additional condition requiring that the “bonus room” window on Plot 7 be restricted to a top-opening design to prevent overlooking.