Address:       Former Magistrates Court and Police Station, Hockliffe Road, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3FF

Outline: Demolition of former magistrates court and police station buildings. Erection of a care home of up to 68 beds including day care facilities and associated hardstanding. Access to be taken from Hockliffe Road.

Applicant:     Central Bedfordshire Council

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/03683/OUT, an outline application for the demolition of the former magistrates court and police station buildings, erection of a care home of up to 68 beds including day care facilities and associated hardstanding with access to be taken from Hockliffe Road at the former magistrates court and police station, Hockliffe Road, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3FF.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional/amended conditions/reasons and additional informatives.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from an objector to the application and from the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.

Clarification was sought from the objector regarding the position at which the possible overlooking of his property might occur, Members being aware that the development layout before them was indicative.  Clarification was also sought from the objector regarding a meeting on the proposals which he claimed had taken place in September 2017 but which he had not been advised of.  The Vice-Chairman advised that the meeting had been organised by Central Bedfordshire Council staff, fully publicised and open to the public.  However, the objector felt that in view of his immediate proximity to the site he should have been notified directly.

Clarification was sought from the applicant’s agent regarding his request that the recommended conditions be varied to delegate authority to the officers to allow demolition of the site concurrently with reserved matters once the conditions relating to heritage and archaeology had been met.  Members were aware that the existing conditions required that Reserved Matters were submitted and approved by the Council before demolition took place.  The agent explained that the variation was sought in order to allow the applicant to market a cleared site to prospective purchasers whereas the existing conditions required the applicant to design a care home and submit a Reserved Matters application before being able to market the site.  The requirement was viewed as unnecessary and wasteful given that it was almost certain that a care home operator would wish to design their own building and would therefore have to submit a Reserved Matters application of their own.  In response the planning officer explained that the recommended conditions had been so worded to guard against a large site in Leighton Buzzard town centre from being left vacant and open, possibly for an extended period of time, and a possible change in market conditions in which there was no longer a need for a care home.

The ward Member indicated his support for the application.  He referred to the various restrictions set out within the conditions and commented that they would give the objector some protection whilst adding that further details would be considered at a later stage.  The ward Member then emphasised that he would not wish to see any relaxation of the highways conditions given the protection they offered to local residents and that the objector should be given the opportunity to view any proposals before any decisions were made.  He also stressed the need to ensure all construction vehicles were kept within the site boundary and were not allowed to park outside and exacerbate existing highways problems.

The Chairman reminded the meeting that notification of the receipt of a Reserved Matters application should be sent to residents within the immediate vicinity of the application site thus providing them with an early opportunity to consider the building design, layout and access.  However, he asked the objector to be vigilant regarding notification.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The Council’s Design Guide requirement that there should be a distance of at least 21 meters between buildings.  Based on the indicative plans submitted the distance between the rear of no. 23 Hockliffe Road and the front of the new building was slightly in excess of 21 meters and at least half of this distance lay within the application site.  The planning officer’s opinion, therefore, was that there would be no harmful loss of privacy in the rear garden of no. 23.

·         That no increase in traffic levels was envisaged given that vehicle levels generated by the previous use of the site as a magistrates court and police station would be replaced by traffic linked to the care home.  The highways officer had raised no concerns. The Vice-Chairman emphasised that the proposed new access to the site was an improvement over the original.

·         The control of noise and disturbance by a construction management plan.

·         The planning officer’s statement that although the care home would be up to three stories high, and therefore one storey higher than other local buildings, it would be set back and could not, therefore, be considered a dominating presence.

·         A Member’s comment that whilst he was disappointed at the loss of the two existing and apparently viable houses on the site and the site being ‘land locked’ he supported the application and emphasised the care home’s usefulness and importance as a resource for both Leighton Buzzard and the wider area.

·         That a condition would limit the noise levels arising from the use of plant, machinery or equipment associated with the care home to prevent an adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents.

·         A Member’s comments that despite a deficiency in care home provision in the west of Central Bedfordshire a proposed care home in Ampthill had been lost because the developer had been unable to find a care home operator willing to pay the developer’s cost.  Whilst expressing support for the application the Member made clear that his support was subject to the site being used for a care home and he queried how this could be guaranteed.  Despite the Chairman’s response that if no care home operator came forward to develop the site then Central Bedfordshire Council, as the landowner, would need to consider reducing the price.  If this failed then any wish to change the use of the site would require the submission of a new planning application.  However, the Member commented that the Ampthill site had eventually been used for a housing development because it had originally received permission for a care home.

·         The Vice-Chairman’s comment that the Town Council was completely in favour of the application.  Further, consultation was currently being undertaken on the Westlands Residential Home in Leighton Buzzard which was likely to close thus increasing the need for a replacement facility both in the town and to help serve Central Bedfordshire in general.

·         Confirmation by the planning officer that the proposed care home would provide up to 68 places and not 75 as stated by the MANOP (Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Older People) team.  The planning officer suggested that the larger figure could have been that included in a possible pre-application submission.

·         The loss of attractive and historically important local buildings of character, the salvage of suitable items and outstanding features from them before demolition, their reuse and the possible reflection of the existing site entrance in the entrance to the new building.

·         The submission of a requirement by the Council’s Housing Development team for the provision of 30% affordable housing within the care home and the absence of any mention of securing nomination rights to some places in the care home.  The planning officer advised that the request had since been withdrawn by the housing officer in recognition that the development was a class C2 care home but notification had arrived too late to be included in the Late Sheet.  Whilst acknowledging this a Member indicated he would still seek an explanation for the submission.

·         Expressions of sympathy and support by various Members for the agent’s request that the recommended conditions be varied to allow demolition of the site concurrently with reserved matters once the conditions relating to heritage and archaeology had been met.

On being put to the vote 9 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/03683/OUT relating to the former magistrates court and police station, Hockliffe Road, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3FF be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.