Address:       102 Markyate Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BX

Proposed New Residential Retirement Care Village with Retirement Living, Assisted Living, High Dependency Care Units, Community Club House, Ancillary Retail Units and Conservatory on a former disused garden nursery and the back garden of 88 Markyate Road. Change of use from unused derelict Land and C3 back garden to C2 Residential Institution.

Applicant:     Black Shu Limited

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00875/FULL for a proposed new residential retirement care village with retirement living, assisted living, high dependency care units, community club house, ancillary retail units and conservatory on a former disused garden nursery and the back garden of 88 Markyate Road.  Change of use from unused derelict land and C3 back garden to C2 residential institution at 102 Markyate Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BX.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from Mr Davesh Sharma, an objector, and a joint representation from Mr Simon Chapman and Mr Justin Wickersham, the agents for the applicant.

In response to a Member’s query the objector stated that he had formally objected to the proposed diversion of Footpath No. 4 to run behind 94-102 Markyate Road.

In response to a Member’s query an agent for the applicant explained the approach taken to arrive at his viability assessment for the project and the resulting non-provision of affordable housing.  He explained what he viewed as the difference in process from that adopted by the Council’s consultant in providing the independent assessment.  The Member explained in turn how the Council’s assessment, unlike that of the applicant, had been drawn up by following the guidance set out in the revised 2018 National Planning Policy Framework  and stressed that, as a result, there was a significant difference in the outcomes arrived at by the two parties.

In response to a query by the Chairman an agent set out the reasons for not providing the affordable housing on-site.

An agent responded to a Member’s queries regarding any discussions which had taken place following the agent’s receipt of the Council’s own viability assessment, the care home costs for the developer and the impact on viability.

In summary a ward Member commented on the following:

·         The application in the context of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan which had received substantial local support.

·         That the Neighbourhood Plan had focused on the provision of residential accommodation and the division between housing in general and accommodation for older people.  It had encouraged a variety of schemes to come forward specifically for older person accommodation.

·         The intention was that older person accommodation would reduce the need for other housing as older people could downsize locally and therefore free up existing family homes.

·         The support from Slip End Parish Council and the community in general.  Whilst there had been objections from those immediately affected, there had been clear support for the application as it would allow the older residents of Slip End, neighbouring villages and eventually Dunstable to move into purpose built accommodation.

·         The need to ensure the scheme’s financial viability.  He felt that the financial contribution from the applicant was acceptable and was in addition to the other benefits that would be forthcoming.

·         The presence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68