Agenda item

Full planning application for the erection of a 74-bed care home facility (Class C2 Use), with associated access road, car parking, cycle storage, landscaping, boundary treatments and refuse facilities.

The Senior Planning Officer, Steve France gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was a full planning application for the erection of a 74-bed care home facility (Class C2 Use), with associated access road, car parking, cycle storage, landscaping, boundary treatments and refuse facilities and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement as set out in the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Sarah Douglas, Senior Commissioning Manager, Adult and Health Services to speak in respect of the application.

 

The Strategic Commissioning Manager noted there were 95 care homes in County Durham looking after older people and added that care homes fell under her area of responsibility. 

She added that the occupancy rate for care homes in County Durham was 86.5 percent, which was not high enough to be sustainable, with one expecting levels of around 92 to 93 percent.  She explained there was concern from care homes in terms of sustainability and noted the recent closure of a care home in Durham in September 2023 and with new care homes opening at Spennymoor and Consett, alongside two planned for Bishop Auckland and Newton Aycliffe.  She added that additional care homes placed pressure on existing care homes in terms of numbers and occupancy. 

 

The Strategic Commissioning Manager noted that care spending was the single largest area of spend for Durham County Council.  She added that the developer had not engaged with the Strategic Commissioning Team and the proposals were not in line with the Council’s or national policy in respect of aiming to keep older persons in their own home wherever possible.  She noted there was no need for further care homes in County Durham.  She added that more care home sites would impact upon care home staff recruitment, and pressure and competition for care home staff was an issue that she felt that the Committee should be mindful of.

 

The Strategic Commissioning Manager noted that additional care homes would increase pressure on the NHS and would increase the need for staff, including District Nurses, Advanced Practitioners and at the nearby Accident and Emergency Department.

 

The Chair thanked the Strategic Commissioning Manager and asked Roger Cornwell, representing the City of Durham Trust, to speak in support of the application.

 

R Cornwell thanked the Chair and Members and explained that on behalf of the City of Durham Trust, he was asking the Committee to support the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.  He added he had two points to make.

 

Firstly, R Cornwell explained that the objection from the Principal of South College was not an official University one, nor was he saying it was.  He added that there had been no comment from Durham University itself. 

R Cornwell noted that students did not have an unlimited right to enjoy a lifestyle with our regard to their neighbours, adding that it was one of the jobs of a college Principal to keep student behaviour within bounds.

 

Secondly, R Cornwell explained that the City of Durham Trust accepted that there was pressure on capacity of the Claypath Medical Practice and not just that NHS facility.  He noted that it was a broader issue for the wider NHS and needed to be addressed at a higher level than that of one medical practice. 

 

He added that the housing developments in the pipeline for Sherburn Road and Sniperley Park would add possibly 6,000 to 9,000 extra patients for the medical practices in the Durham area.  He noted the impact of the 74 extra patients, even with additional needs, paled into insignificance.  He noted that plainly we needed more Doctors in Durham and refusing the application would not solve that problem.

 

R Cornwell noted that research the City of Durham undertook when developing the Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) predicted that there would be an additional 1,500 people aged over 75 in the wider Durham area by 2035 looking to the future, which would equate to a need for around 150 extra places in care homes.  He noted the closure of the Hallgarth care home in the past year, and more broadly in County Durham in the past three months there had been proposals for care homes in Stanhope and Shotley Bridge which had been replaced by apartments and a hotel respectively. 

 

R Cornwell concluded by noting that with an aging population we needed more care homes and asked if Members would please approve the application.

 

The Chair thanked R Cornwell and asked Ian Ward, representing the Applicant, Torsion Care, to speak in support of their application.

 

I Ward explained that Torsion Care was based in Leeds and operated care home sites within the Midlands and North East of England.  He noted they developed, built and ran care homes, assisted living and extra care facilities and as main contractor and operator, Torsion Care had a vested interest in the full life of such developments.

 

I Ward explained that within a five-mile radius of the site, only 14 care homes had been developed, with five since 2000 and non in the last five years.  He explained that the proposed development was sympathetic to its surroundings, and the standard Torsion Care layout was designed for efficiency.  He noted that the development would generate a minimum of 70 jobs for those in the local area, including in terms of builders and tradespersons in construction of the care home.  He noted the design had an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of A, adding that BREEAM and low carbon were at the forefront when developing the application.  He noted the inclusion of air source heat pump and solar panels, alongside underfloor heating, all contribute to a development that would be of great benefit to the area.

 

The Chair thanked I Ward and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor P Jopling noted she had attended the site visit and had noted the close proximity to the college.  She added she did not feel that any amount of screening would be able to prevent noise from the nearby students, and while it was all well to ask students to not be noisy, their behaviour would be impacted from alcohol consumption as there was a bar.  Those issues aside, Councillor P Jopling noted that she felt the largest issue was that of health, as set out within pages 22 to 24 of the report pack.  She noted that it was stated that there was no need for another care home, and that the county was not short of care home beds, the Council’s own figures and as referred to by the Officer in attendance.  She added that she was extremely concerned in terms of the impact on the Medical Practice’s existing patients and noted she felt the £15,000 contribution was a derisory amount.  She noted she would have felt different if a facility of this size had included an in-house Doctor and that, as it stood, it would leave larger problems for the Local Authority.  She noted she had spoken to one of the Local Members, Councillor L Brown, and understood that there should have been another Doctors Surgery in the city and from her understanding the Accident and Emergency Department at the University Hospital of North Durham was busy. 

 

Councillor P Jopling noted that older people represented a greater impact upon the NHS and require more care, in general, compared to younger people.  She reiterated that she felt that should the application be granted, the problems would be passed on to the Council and the surrounding community.  She added she also felt that it would not be fair on the college either.  Councillor P Jopling noted that in her view the proposals were too close to the college, would cause trouble for the future, were not based upon need, and were in the city centre where she felt many older people would not want to live.  She concluded by noting she may vote against the proposals.

 

Councillor L Brown noted she had some questions and observations.  She asked how far the living accommodation was from the college hub and new purpose build student accommodation (PBSA).  She noted that Claypath Medical Practice had two surgeries, however, noted they served the 22,500 students and remaining residents in the city centre.  She noted that the Masterplan for the Mount Oswald site had included a GP Surgery, however, that had fallen by the wayside and therefore there would be an impact in terms of community assets and asked if any National Planning Policy Framework or County Durham Plan (CDP) policies would apply in that respect.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the report did discuss the proximity of those buildings at paragraph 141, with the hub being 32 metres away, though to the service side of the building. 

 

 

He noted that the 850 bed PBSA was only at the outline phase and therefore there was no definitive distance from that development, though noted it was likely to be around 30 to 40 metres, although as there was some open space between the two sites, and a cycleway and some trees with a tree preservation order, it could be up to around 60 to 70 metres.  Councillor L Brown asked for the minimum distance to a living area, the Senior Planning Officer reiterated 32 metres.

 

The Chair noted the reference to healthcare and the statement from Claypath Medical Practice.  He noted that he understood that the Practice was looking to expand in the city as they could not accommodate the number of patients they have currently.  He added that while it had been stated that there was sufficient care home provision within the county, that was not the same as saying there was sufficient care home provision within the city area.  He noted the closure of the Hallgarth care home and added that was not purely as a result of low occupancy, as there had been an application to have student accommodation on that site, refused at Committee.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted the issue of need, in respect of additional care homes, and asked if that was a material consideration.  He asked if there was an understanding of need across the whole County versus that of the city area.  He noted his personal experience in trying to secure a care home place for family and that he had been required to travel some distance out of the city area to obtain such care.  He added that he was not convinced by the argument that there was not sufficient need.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted the position in respect of medical provision was quite strange, with the large 850 bed PBSA approved at the outline stage, and with other major developments amounting to between 6,000 to 9,000 new residents in the near future.  He added that would result in a considerable uplift, and that the impact of the proposals in from of Members seemed so tiny compared to those larger upcoming developments.  He added it seemed strange Claypath Medical Practice had objected to this application, however, had not objected to those developments that would result in an additional 6,000 to 9,000 residents.

 

The Chair allowed the Strategic Commissioning Manager to respond to the question from Councillor J Elmer.  The Strategic Commissioning Manager noted that the level of occupancy in Durham City was 84 percent, less than the County Durham average.  She noted that Chester-le-Street had an overprovision of care home places and that there had been a reduction in the number of nursing beds in the county, and region, that many ‘deregistering’ as nursing homes and moving to being ‘residential’ homes. 

 

 

She added that was a situation that was being closely monitored, however, the general trend was for a focus on ‘extra care’ noting seven sites, and in-house provision, with specialist dementia care at Spennymoor, and Poppy Dene at Peterlee being examples of the focus on ‘extra care’.  She added that Members would be familiar with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and explained that there had assessed the quality of care within County Durham and that 90.5 percent were assessed as either good or outstanding, a very good statistic which demonstrated that our market in County Durham was very good.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that while relevant in terms of impact upon the NHS, and as a material planning consideration, each application was looked at on its own merits.  He noted that the objections in terms of need raised by Adult and Health Services were at a strategic level, however, the applicant had provided their own assessment which demonstrated need at the local, divisional level.  He added that the applicant had noted that within a three to five mile radius of the application site, it was likely that many of the future care home residents would already be patients of the Claypath Medical Practice and not represent an additional burden.  He noted that the NHS response received by the Planning Department was that the contribution via the Section 106 Agreement was sufficient to mitigate the increased demand from the application.  He added that if any new permission were sought in the area, a similar imposition would be placed and therefore he would caution against too much weight being placed upon need.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted the Strategic Commissioning Manager had explained the County Durham position and the impact seemed clear.  He noted Members had sat in the chamber and heard evidence in terms of other need, such as housing need, and noted he would not be supporting the application.

 

Councillor P Jopling asked Officers if they felt that the £15,000 contribution towards NHS provision was sufficient.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the NHS had standard formulae relating to contributions, based on the number of people, type of development and so on.  He added that the North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board (NENCICB) had provided their response to consultation noting a requirement for a £15,000 contribution to be secured via Section 106 Legal Agreement.  He added that the amount for each Section 106 contribution relating to any new development was provided on a per-application basis.

 

Councillor P Jopling noted the issue she had was that even if the provision was extended at the Medical Practice, there were already issues in getting an appointment with a Doctor. 

 

 

She added that it was frustrating that, if the application was agreed, we would not be sure that any additional GP provision would be in place for a long time, similar to other housing developments that were still without shops or transport in place long after development had been completed.  She added she felt that the Committee had a duty of care to the existing patients and that the issue was one of amenity.  She reiterated there were three pages within the report noting the impact upon health provision.

 

The Chair noted existing permissions, and those in the near future, would amount to around 6,000 to 9,000 additional patients and therefore the additional medical provision required for this application appeared to be a ‘drop in the ocean’ when compared to those developments.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter noted the discussion in respect of the need for the type of development and sustainability.  He explained that there was no policy requirement in respect of need, and therefore the number of care home places or sustainability or impact upon the sustainability of other care homes sat outside of the Planning system.  He noted that his advice to the Committee was that any refusal relating to need would be unsustainable.  He added that the NHS contribution decided upon had been as a result of the official response and while that was in discord with the comments from the local Medical Practice, the official body had responded to the consultation noting a £15,000 contribution would be appropriate.  He added it would be for the local Medical Practice to approach the official body in order to make their representations, and for the Committee to consider the application as set out.

 

Councillor P Jopling noted she still felt it was an issue of impact upon amenity, and therefore was it not an issue for Policy 29 or 31 of the CDP.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that Policy 31 referred to residential amenity and therefore would relate to the impact of the scheme on the college and vice-versa.  Councillor P Jopling reiterated she felt that the impact of healthcare was an impact upon amenity.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) reiterated that healthcare was outside of planning in terms of the need or sustainability, with the impact upon amenity being subjective.

 

Councillor L Brown asked if the Medical Practice could be considered as a community asset and policies associated apply.  She also noted that, if the application were to be approved, if the construction start time within Condition 11 could be altered from 0730 to 0800.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that ‘asset of community value’ referred to village greens and the like and did not apply to GP Surgeries.  He noted that Part 8 of the NPPF noted that elements of any community should be placed together, namely such facilities. 

He reiterated that the response from the standard NHS consultee had been to suggest a contribution that would mitigate the impact of the development and therefore any refusal on the healthcare provision would likely prove difficult to defend given that response.  He added that while there may be some time lag in terms of any contribution, he felt that if the Medical Practice were looking for a new site, the contribution may be availably quite quickly.

 

Councillor L Brown moved that the application be approved, as per the recommendation set out within the report, subject to an amended Condition 11 to have the commencement of works at 0800. 

 

Councillor A Surtees asked if the economic impact of the development was a material planning consideration.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that economic benefits or disbenefits could be a material consideration.  Councillor A Surtees noted she did not agree with the figure relating to provision being around 84 percent occupied and noted that many people from all over the county were living in care homes in the East of the county.  She noted that the impact of an additional care home would impact upon the economics of all the care homes in County Durham and that if there were more built, based upon the current numbers, we would not be able to forward plan in terms of numbers.  She added she would not be supporting the application.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he was torn over the issue of need, and while not a material consideration, it was difficult to rule out, as stated by Councillor A Surtees.  He noted in respect of the residential amenity, he felt the University would be able to manage any impact.  He recalled the Sheraton Park development, where the University had a nearby bar located and they themselves had stated the situation between their bar and the residential properties would be ‘manageable’.  Councillor J Elmer clarified that, in relation to medical provision, the was a high likelihood that a high proportion of the new residents of the proposed care home were already existing patients of the Claypath Medical Practice and for that, and the other reasons stated, he would second Councillor L Brown’s motion for approval of the application.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted he supported the comments made by Councillor A Surtees.

 

The Chair noted a motion for approval had been made by Councillor L Brown, seconded by Councillor J Elmer and upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

 

Councillor K Shaw proposed the refusal of the application, based upon the economic impact.  He was seconded by Councillor A Surtees.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) advised that while Cllr Surtees’ had eloquently expressed her motion in terms of economic disbenefits, in truth this still amounted to an issue of need or competition relating to care homes, which was not for the planning system to determine.  He added he was still of the view that such a refusal would be unsustainable at any subsequent appeal.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted that existing provision would be impacted by the proposed development.  The Chair noted he felt that was still referring to need.  Councillor P Jopling noted she felt it was amenity, given the close proximity to the college.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted the motion for refusal had been made and seconded in relation to economic impact and added that amenity had not been raised as an issue to include.  He asked if the comments from Councillor P Jopling were meant as a rival motion for refusal, or if she wished to amend the existing refusal motion to include amenity as a second refusal reason.  Councillor P Jopling noted that she felt there was no amenity to service the proposed care home, and that there would be a greater impact as older people in care homes required more care and therefore there would not be the amenity to cope in terms of the existing GP provision. 

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) said he understood that Cllr Jopling was proposing an amendment to the refusal motion to add a second refusal reason and that this would need to be supported by Members if it were to be voted upon.  He also, reiterated that his advice was that a refusal based upon economic impact would not be sustainable at appeal.  In terms of amenity, he reiterated that impacts on the NHS in terms of healthcare would not fall within the amenity policy although would fall within other policies but he would need to understand why the contribution requested by the NHS would not be sufficient.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted her motion was for refusal based upon the economic impact on existing care home provision, similar to the impact of any new university upon the existing university, or any new supermarket on existing supermarkets, with a new care home impacting upon existing care homes.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that was effectively a reference to competition, as spoken about by the Strategic Commissioning Manager, in terms of the impact of an additional care home on the economics of the area.  Councillor P Jopling noted she felt it was for Planning Officers to find policies to support the Committee in terms of any refusal.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that Policy 31 referred to residential amenity, for example whether a property was being overlooked.  He reiterated the comments from the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) in that medical provision sat elsewhere, and not within planning. 

He noted the planning remit was quite narrow and urged caution and reiterated Officers had noted they did not feel the reasons for refusal given would be defendable.  He reiterated that amenity referred to in Policy 31 was residential amenity.  Councillor P Jopling noted when residential development was considered, the provision of sustainable transport was considered and therefore was healthcare provision a similar amenity. 

The Chair noted that Councillor A Surtees did not appear to support Councillor P Jopling’s interpretation of amenity and there was a motion put by Councillor A Surtees, seconded by Councillor K Shaw for refusal.

 

Councillor P Jopling asked what policy was being cited in the refusal, adding she was happy to go with the motion put by Councillor A Surtees just that she felt adding Policy 31.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that whilst there appeared to be some confusion in relation to Policy 31, he asked if there was any appetite to add it to the proposed refusal.  Councillor P Jopling asked why health provision was not amenity.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) reiterated that healthcare provision was not amenity as referenced within Policy 31.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that Policy 31 referred to impact upon health, living, the natural environment and that refusal should set out any reason why it was felt that any mitigation against those impacts was not sufficient.  He added the at the CDP and DCNP noted that, in principle, that such development was good, and that any shortfall should be met via mitigation.  He asked whether Members were saying that the issues could only be mitigated at a strategic level.

 

Councillor P Jopling noted that Members were here to make a decision and if they were just being asked to agree applications then why were Members invited to the meeting.  She added she felt that Officers were saying Members could not make a decision.  The Chair noted that was not what Officers were saying, they were simply providing advice in terms of the refusal reasons suggested.  He noted there was no support for adding Policy 31 (amenity) to the refusal proposed so far, and therefore Councillor P Jopling was not in a position to move forward on those grounds.  At this stage Cllr Jopling said she would withdraw her motion.

 

The Chair reiterated that a motion for refusal had been put forward by Councillor A Surtees and seconded by Councillor K Shaw, and upon a vote being taken it was:

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED as the development will result in unacceptable economic impacts upon existing older persons accommodation provision and providers in County Durham, compromising economic growth, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development, contrary to paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).