96-bed care home at Former Derwent House Residential Home, Newbold, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application sought a 96-bed care home with access, 27 parking spaces, cycle storage, landscaping, retained trees and a mostly three-storey building.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a 96- bed care home with associated access, car parking and landscaping. The existing road access from Ulverston Road has been retained. This would serve a car park with 27 spaces, including 2 disabled bays and 2”

“EV charging bays. Cycle parking is proposed on the eastern corner of the building in a secure, covered shelter providing 8 cycle parking spaces with an additional Sheffield stand located close to the main entrance providing 2 cycle spaces for visitors. The majority of the existing trees would be retained, plus additional planting is proposed. Provision has been made for a sub-station to be located on the north east corner of the site to serve the proposed care home.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was formerly occupied by Derwent House, lies within the built-up area, is allocated for residential development and is in Flood Zone 1.

“Newbold Road forms the southern boundary of the site, with Ulverston Road to the east and Brome Head Way to the north. There is an existing access onto the site from Ulverston Road which leads to an area of hardstanding. There is a slight level change across the site with the area of foliage to the south being between 0.7m to 1.0m higher than the centre of the site. The properties on Ulverston Road…”

“The application site is within the defined Built up Area and allocated for residential development as site H10 under Policy CLP3 on the Chesterfield Borough Council adopted local plan policies map 2018- 2035.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

The former care home was demolished in 2014 under an earlier demolition application.

“CHE/14/00441/DEM Demolition of former residential care home -”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Consultees raised no highway objection subject to controls, supported the care-home principle, and requested conditions or contributions covering drainage, archaeology, mining, ecology and travel.

“Ward Members No comments received Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions and S106 agreement for Travel Plan monitoring – see report Derbyshire Wildlife Trust See report CBC Urban Design Officer Principle of development is acceptable and portrays good design principles – see report CBC Strategic Planning Policy The site is allocated for residential development within the Local Plan (as site H10 under policy CLP3).”

“County Archaeology Recommend a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological works – see report Mining Remediation Authority Concurs with the conclusion of the supporting Phase 1: Desk Study; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to development at the site and that investigations are required, along with possible remedial measures, in order to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development.”

Officer report

What residents said

Two residents responded: one was generally supportive but raised several concerns, while another objected to environmental, traffic, safety, design, noise and infrastructure impacts.

“Representations have been received from 2 local residents. The first is generally supportive of the proposal but makes comments relating to the following topics: • Footprint, scale and massing • Traffic, access and parking • Noise • Ecology and biodiversity net gain • Lighting • Construction • Planning, and • Need…”

“The second has significant concerns about the impact the development will have on the local environment, traffic, safety and overall quality of life for residents. Raises the following which the author believes constitute material planning considerations: • Loss of green space and established plants • Inadequate parking provision • Impact on local traffic and infrastructure • Overbearing height of the proposed development • Loss of views and visual amenity • Increase in…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and a representative speaking for the applicant addressed the committee.

Committee discussion

Members considered the report, including the 21-metre separation distance, balcony screening, parking, biodiversity and the duplicated condition.

“The Development Management and Conservation Manager presented the report, sharing photos and explaining the application seeks full planning permission for the errection of a 96-bed care home with associated access, car parking and landscaping. Reference was made to the 21m distance except for the balcony structure which would be 20m. It was explained that this has a high-level screen so would be considered reasonable.”

“Concerns and representations are as outlined in the officer’s report. Parking had been considered reasonable and Biodiversity would require off site units.”

Minutes

Vote and decision

Members moved and seconded the officer recommendation, then granted permission subject to the travel-plan contribution and conditions, removing and renumbering the duplicated condition.

“The Committee considered the report. It was moved by Councillor Caulfield and seconded by Councillor Miles that the officer recommendation be upheld.”

“That the officer recommendation be upheld, and the application be GRANTED subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure a financial contribution of £6325 towards the travel plan monitoring fee and the conditions outlined in the Officer’s report. The duplication of Condition 11 is to be removed, and the conditions thereafter renumbered.”

Minutes