Five-person care home at 49 Hallsfield Road, Chatham

“Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.”

“Description of Proposal: Planning permission is sought for a ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals with learning disabilities. The current age group for residents is between 40 – 53. The company, St Leonard’s Place, employs eight members of staff in total.”

“The Site: 2.1 49 Hallsfield Road is a detached property situated on the east side of Hallsfield Road, Chatham. There is an Ancient Woodland to the rear of the site, with the rear garden partially sitting within the Buffer Zone.”

“Planning History (relevant): No recent planning history.”

“It is considered that the proposed conservatory would not result in any loss of light to neighbouring properties, as the 45-degree rule is met on both sides. Moreover, the conservatory is a lightweight glazed structure rather than a solid built form such as a brick extension, which significantly reduces its visual mass and overall impact.”

“Moreover, if noise nuisances did occur, nearby residents would still be protected under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The aforementioned condition requiring an Operational Management Plan is recommended to mitigate impacts to neighbouring amenity. This should include contact details for the site manager so neighbours can get in touch if complaints or concerns arise.”

“Consultees: PC: No objection. KCC (Highways): KCC Highways has reviewed the submitted Parking Management Plan (PMP). While the applicant has addressed some previously raised concerns, the document lacks sufficient detail, and the requested site plan showing independent accessible parking spaces has not been provided. It is also requested that the applicant confirms the expected daily visitor numbers and explain how these will be managed.”

“The change from C3 to C2 would not, at first glance at the information supplied, seem to raise any undue Environmental Protection concerns. I have had one case of this type of use causing alleged noise issues to residents, but this was not substantiated as being Statutory Nuisance. In my experience, that type of disturbance is by no means the norm. Informatives.”

“Increased vehicular movements • Increased noise pollution • Fear of crime and security • Light pollution • Suitability of property for C2 use • Unsustainable location • Loss of privacy • Loss of light • Overbearingness of proposed conservatory • Waste and odour • Loss of residential character • Overdevelopment/ intensity of use • Stress on local NHS services…”

“However, as there was no objection raised by the Kent County Council Highways regarding highway safety or insufficient parking provision, it was acknowledged that as a statutory consultee, their response to the consultation would carry significant weight in the determination of this application.”

“Following a formal vote, the proposal was carried with eight Members voting in favour and five Members voting against. On the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal and there was likely to be a risk of significant costs being awarded against the Council at any appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of the Constitution.”

“RECOMMENDED*: That consideration of the planning application stand ADJOURNED with the recommendation to refuse the planning application being referred for determination by Council in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution.”

“(1) as a result of the increased comings and goings, additional parking of vehicles, staff movements, disruption and activity would result in an unacceptable intensification of the site, out of keeping with the character of this quiet residential area and harmful to neighbourhood, neighbouring amenities, in conflict with policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Maling Core Strategy and policy SQ1 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document; and…”

“(2) as a result of insufficient off-street parking, the proposal would not function well over the lifetime of the development and the parking plan would not be enforceable or provide sufficient mitigation for the failure to provide the necessary off-street parking spaces.”