70-bed care home amendment at Silverlea, Cove Road, Fleet

What was proposed

The application sought changes to a permitted 70-bed care home, including raised and re-profiled ground levels and altered elevations.

“Application Reference: 25/02097/AMCON Address: Silverlea, Cove Road, Fleet, Hampshire, GU51 2RR Description of Proposal: Minor Material Amendment (Section 73 Application) to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of Planning Permission granted at appeal (ref: APP/N1730/W/23/3319799) for the construction of a 70 Bed care home (use class C2) including access, parking, landscaping and other associated works (following demolition of existing dwellings).”

“- Re-profiling and raising of site's ground levels - Changes to elevations…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is under construction beside Cove Road, adjoining homes, a water compound, protected nature areas and a tree preservation area.

“The site is located to the northern side of Cove Road and was formerly occupied by three self- contained bungalows in residential use, independent of each other. The site fronts onto the railway line located on the south side of Cove Road. The subject site forms part of the eastern edge of the settlement boundary. The development which is the subject of this application is currently under construction.”

“There are also Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) opposite the site to the south, Fleet Pond Woods, and east of it, Sanky Lane Meadow. The northern boundary of the site adjoins a narrow area designated as a Tree Preservation Order, which spans across several rear gardens.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The original care-home application was refused by the council but allowed on appeal in 2023.

“The planning history of the subject site mainly comprises discharge of conditions applications associated with the main planning permission below, which is the most relevant record to the…”

“22/02520/FUL– LPA Refused on 08.02.2023, Appeal Allowed on 14.12.2023. Erection of a 70 Bed care home (use class C2) including access, parking, landscaping and other associated works, following demolition of existing dwellings…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the revised scheme would not materially affect local character or neighbouring amenity, subject to controls.

“Matters that were previously considered by the Planning Inspectorate and regarded acceptable include the following: the principle of development, the development’s design and appearance, access and parking, biodiversity, recreational pressure on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, refuse and climate change. The amended scheme subject to this application does not have any material impact on these matters.”

“The alterations sought by this Section 73 application are the reprofiling/raising of ground levels, the different resultant levels of the development on the site and the associated elevational changes. These must be considered in terms of character of the locality and neighbouring amenity. Also, the reprofiling of the site’s ground would have implications with surface water drainage and tree protection.”

Officer report

Levels and neighbours

The proposed building heights were reduced so its ridge levels were similar to or lower than those approved, limiting additional effects on neighbours.

“A section of the approved building which has a lower height (in comparison to other sections) is located to the western end of the building. This end was approved at 8.3m above the ‘Level 0’ indicated in the approved plans. Therefore, the corresponding AOD of the ridge is approved at 77.70 (i.e. 69.40 + 8.3m).”

“However, from all those properties listed, Woodside and no.30 Forest Dean are the closest to the shared boundary and the approved/ proposed building, as such these neighbours would be the ones that would bear the highest level of impacts when compared to other neighbours listed which would be slightly further away from the approved/ proposed building. The amenity impacts discussion below therefore focuses principally on these two properties.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The town council and flood authority raised drainage concerns, while the highway, environmental health and biodiversity consultees raised no objection.

“Local Highway Authority (Hampshire County Council) No objection to the proposed change ground level changes.”

“Environmental Health Officer (Internal) No objection raised with only an advice note concerning unexpected land contamination.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-two objections cited increased height, overlooking, flooding, highway safety, construction problems, planning breaches and tree damage.

“Highways and Safety - Safety of prospective residents compromised due to raised levels and sloping gardens - Health and safety concerns from excessive construction vehicle movements and reckless driving…”

“Planning Breaches - Serious planning breaches committed - Enormous deviations to the scheme are not minor material amendments - Incorrect datum levels of neighbouring properties stated in originally submitted plans…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A town councillor and a resident spoke against the application, while the applicant’s architect spoke in support and answered questions.

What members discussed

Members discussed the approved layout, levels, design, effects on neighbours and drainage, and valued the site visit and proposed enforceable conditions.

“the site layout approved at appeal and the proposed level as stated in the application • the design changes that were proposed and the impact for the residents to the west and north boundaries of the site • drainage issues…”

“stated that, if the Committee refused the planning application, the scheme that had been approved by the Planning Inspector at appeal, could still be built • acknowledged that the applicant had made appropriate changes to mitigate the problems that existed - having recognised the contradiction in the plans submitted to the Planning Inspector at appeal, and was seeking to amend and ameliorate the impact by modifying the building • referred to the value of the site visit in…”

Minutes

The committee vote

The motion to grant permission with amended and additional conditions was moved, seconded and agreed by the committee.

“The recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the agenda and as amended in the addendum paper and additional conditions on landscaping and drainage (to be determined in consultation with the Chair, Ward Councillors (Cllrs Taylor and Wildsmith), and a representative of Fleet Town Council (Cllr Woods) (as outlined in the meeting)) was moved by Cllr Wildsmith and seconded by the Chair (Cllr Oliver) and was agreed by the Committee.”

Minutes