65-bedroom care home at Wythall Business Centre, Hollywood

The site

The site covered about 0.34 hectares and contained a vacant business centre, office and library accommodation, car parking and a nearby watercourse.

“Site description The site area is approximately 0.34 hectare and comprises a vacant business centre, with office library accommodation and car parking. The premises were previously arranged to be let as separate office suites with communal facilities. It is positioned on the southern side of May Lane between the intersections of Arden Road (to the west) and Warmington Road (to the east).”

“The existing building, constructed around 1972, was originally the Wythall Health Centre and changed use in 2010 to become serviced office accommodation and a library. The library was subsequently closed in April 2016 and was relocated to the Woodrush…”

Officer report

Earlier site history

An earlier office conversion application was refused in 2010, while a resubmitted scheme was approved later that year.

“Change of use of former health centre (D1) to serviced office accommodation (B1), 5 additional car parking spaces, motorcycle parking and cycle parking Refused 09.08.2010”

“Change of use of former health centre (D1) to serviced office accommodation (B1), 11 additional car parking spaces, motorcycle parking and cycle parking (re-submission of 10/0540) Approved 15.10.2010”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and legal contributions, finding the proposal acceptable in principle, design, flooding, highways, amenity and infrastructure terms.

“The legal section has confirmed that these contributions would be dealt with by a unliteral undertaking, should the application be approved.”

“The proposed development is considered to be an acceptable use in principle, in this location and the design and scale of the proposed building is appropriate having regards to character locally and would be a betterment onsite to the vacant site. Living conditions, highways impacts, flooding, parking provision and the impact on community infrastructure are all considered to be acceptable.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Most technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the parish council and residents objected mainly over flooding, design, parking and highway safety.

“Worcestershire Highways - Bromsgrove No objection subject to conditions • Site Access • Vehicular Visibility Splays • Access Gates • Vehicle Parking and Turning Facilities • Vehicle Parking Management Strategy • Cycle Parking • Employment Travel Plan • Combined Demolition Method Statement and Construction Traffic Management Plan • Surface Water Drainage • Off-site Highways Improvements…”

“Wythall Parish Council • Objection. Whilst the committee is not averse to this site being redeveloped, nor to the proposed use, the regular flooding that affects access to the site, which is well known locally and has been highlighted by North Worcestershire Water Management, has not been recognised in the application. Particularly due to the vulnerability of the intended residents, this must be addressed.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A county councillor and two local residents spoke against the application, while the applicant’s planning agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members questioned lighting, parking, transport, the flood exit route, the building’s character, screening, privacy and the effect on nearby homes.

“A lighting assessment plan to assess the impact on local residents had not been submitted as part of the application. • Parking was assessed which considered the locality of transport links. It was determined that of the 24 staff on site at one time, 18 would travel by car which would leave 10 spaces for visitors/doctors. Additionally, it was the general assumption for C2 use developments that none of the residents would drive.”

“Members questioned the look of the three-storey building which in their opinion would be out of character to the locality and would visually harm the amenity of the area. Members expressed the opinion that the impact would be made greater with the switching of the orientation of the building in terms of where the carpark and building were situated which would bring a number of dwellings close to the care home and would have an impact on screening and privacy for those…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the emergency access was inadequate for elderly and vulnerable occupants and the development harmed visual amenity and privacy.

“Following the debate and advice given, an Alternative Recommendation was put forward by Councillor S. R. Peters and seconded by Councillor E. M. S. Gray, that the application should be refused on the grounds of 1. The inadequacy of the safe access and emergency plan given the expected elderly and vulnerable occupants of the site contrary to NPPF para 181 and;”

Minutes