Agenda item

Proposed Medical Centre and Dentist, associated access, car parking and landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the application and explained that it was for the erection of a primary care doctors surgery with a dentist. They informed the Committee of the main points of the applications:

·         The proposal was to build on agricultural land.

·         The application included offsite highways works which consisted of 2 additional bus stops, a revised buildout and corresponding speed limits built out.

·         Concerns were raised from residents with regards to views into properties from passengers waiting at the bus stop.

·         The site was outside the settlement limits of Minchinhampton and was within the AONB.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) explained to the committee the principles which had helped to make their recommendation, these included:

• Policy CP15 of the local plan which allowed for development outside of settlement limits subject to certain criteria.
• The site was located within the AONB. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gave great weight to the preservation of the character of the AONB.
• This application was not considered to be a major development.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) summed up the wider considerations of the site which included:

• The water board had agreed to connect the sewer to the mains.
• The proposed design included the addition of swales to increase biodiversity.
• Planting of native tree and hedge species to provide a screening from headlights.
• Low level lighting scheme was proposed due to the potential of bats in the area.
• The mature trees along the boundary were protected by a TPO, a condition had been included to agree the method of construction near these trees in order to protect the roots.

Councillor Turner spoke as a Ward Member for the area. She stated that there was a need for the surgery in the area and recognised the sensitivity regarding the location of the site. She drew the Committees attention to the following points:

·         The applicant’s intention to secure an excellent BREEAM rating.

·         The conditioning of the low-level lighting.

·         She would have liked to have seen the landscaping conditioned to ensure little to no impact from headlights to neighbouring properties.

Mr Neate, a local resident, spoke against the application. He asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• Core Policy CP15 of the local plan stated that such essential development would only be permitted in the open countryside if it could not be accommodated within the identified settlement development limits.
• The application was in contravention to CP15 because the medical centre could redevelop their current building.
• If this application was permitted, it would set a precedent.
• The location of this application would mean residents from the other end of the village would need to drive to access it.
• A previous plot of land, closer than the proposed site, was dismissed for being too far to walk.
• 5 other sites for this application were also dismissed due to their development not being achievable within the NHS funding timeframe.
• The Proposed medical centre would be 3x the size of the current one with a private dentist included, he questioned whether this was required for such a small village.

Dr’s Cooper, Weir and Beard, the applicants, spoke in favour of the applications. They asked the Committee to support the application for the following reasons:

• The current building was built in 1971, since then, the population of Minchinhampton had risen from 3,000 to 7,600.
• They had converted every store cupboard and space available and were still struggling to find room.
• The rooms were too small and not fit for purpose.
• 12 years ago they began to look for a new site to build, they had chosen this site out of a potential 17 sites because this was the only one that was accessible, available for development and could be provided within the NHS funding time constraints.
• The new surgery would provide, 14 consulting rooms, a large health promotion room, a reception area, waiting area and a dentist.
• Thought had been given to the design to preserve and enhance biodiversity.
• A new building would secure the future of the Minchinhampton surgery.
• Additional services would now be able to be offered locally which would reduce travel to Stroud and Gloucester.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) gave the following responses to questions raised from Councillors:

• The dry stone wall in the plan was secured under the second planning condition. There was also a soft landscaping plan which would secure the planting.
• The stub of road shown in the plans was for the access to the paddock.
• It was unlikely that there would be views into properties from the bus stop due to the sight angle and the minimal time people would spend at the bus stop.
• The details for the planting could be found in the report and if it was felt necessary, they could discuss options with the developer.
• They were happy that this was the only viable site out of those listed.

Councillor Ryder debated the potential to condition the boundary treatment in order to provide screening to the neighbours immediately. The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) confirmed from the plans that the proposed height of the hedge was 0.4m, it could not be evergreen due to being a natural species.

Councillor Ryder questioned whether it was possible to condition a minimum maintained height. The Head of Development Management confirmed Councillors could attach a condition to maintain a certain height level.

Councillor Ryder proposed the Officers advise subject to a condition to raise the initial height of the boundary hedges to a minimum of 1 metre.

Councillor Hall seconded.

Councillor Ryder thanked the Officer for their report and expressed his support for the application.

Councillor Schoemaker expressed his concerns for this application.

Councillor Fenton expressed her support due to the need for the service that will be provided. Councillor Hall echoed Councillor Fenton.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried with 6 votes for and 1 vote against.