Older people’s apartments at Mozart Court, Fairview Road, Stevenage

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing buildings and constructing a six-storey scheme with 79 apartments for independent living by older people.

“To the north and east are two storey residential dwellings, mostly detached or semi- detached and of varying design and materials. Further east is the development of Watson Road and Kilby Road which comprise a mix of dwellings, and low-rise and high-rise flat blocks finished in multiple render colour options and brickwork.”

“New and modern independent living schemes are designed to be suitable for residents who require varying degrees of care ranging from people who still live fully independent lives through to people who require a daily carer. The principle behind this is that as people’s needs vary over time, residents can remain in their homes and adapt their environment to suit their needs rather than having to move to a new house.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The established older persons site contained 33 units in three buildings and was surrounded by roads, homes, commercial premises and mature trees.

“DC88 1. SITE DESCRIPTION 1.1 The application site comprises an established older person’s residential site, first granted planning permission in 1972 (2/0360/72) which comprises 33 units. There is no evidence to suggest that it has operated as anything other than older persons accommodation since construction. The site lies at the southern end of Fairview Road, bounded by Fairview Road, Fairlands Way and Maxwell Road. It comprises 3 buildings of one, two, and three storeys.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because significant housing, affordable housing, brownfield, environmental and economic benefits outweighed parking and cycle storage policy conflicts.

“DC88 8.3 The development would provide 79 dwellings, for independent (assisted) living of older persons, making a strong contribution to the aim of boosting housing supply, which in this instance, would be through redeveloping a sustainable brownfield site to deliver this much needed type of residential dwelling.”

“In conclusion, whilst the proposal has been assessed to contravene policy IT5 of the Local Plan (2019) through under provision of car parking and cycle parking, it is considered that the public benefits identified through the delivery of much needed independent living apartments and affordable housing, on previously developed brownfield land, outweigh the harms identified.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental health, flooding and ecology consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while Affinity Water requested further groundwater information.

“Affinity Water You should be aware that the proposed development site is located within an Environment Agency defined groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 corresponding to our Pumping Station. This is a public water supply, comprising a number of Chalk abstraction boreholes.”

“DC88 5.7 Environmental Health Concerns regarding adjacent commercial premises can be mitigated with appropriate conditions for glazing and ventilation specifications and construction of acoustic barrier as shown on the plans, to protect future occupiers.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A Cycling UK representative criticised the cycling facilities, while the planning agent described the scheme as affordable, accessible and designed for older residents.

What members discussed

Members discussed parking, security, electric-vehicle and electric-bike charging, tree protection, cycle storage, allocations and swift-brick monitoring.

“Members asked whether electric vehicle (EV) charging points would be included within the development. Officers explained that EV charging provision was covered under Part S of the Building Regulations, which now required higher standards than those set by the Council’s parking policies.”

“Members questioned the lack of dedicated electric bike charging points. Officers explained that while developers could choose to provide such facilities, there was no policy requirement.”

Minutes