Agenda item

To consider planning application 21/0247 for the erection of a single storey rear extension and extension of existing hard surfacing to the front and side of property to create replacement parking.

The Planning Committee considered application 21/0247 for the erection of a single storey rear extension and extension of existing hard surfacing to the front and side of property to create replacement parking at Arnold Medical Centre, 204 St Anne’s Road, Blackpool.

Miss Susan Parker, Head of Development Management, outlined the report and provided a summary of the application, site details and the planning history. The application had been brought before the Committee as it was a community facility and of general public interest.

Miss Parker outlined the dimensions of the proposed extension and noted that the applicant intended to provide seven parking spaces at the front and thirteen to the rear and side. The surgery had been created from a former house in 1991 and had been extended since then. It stood in an area with residential character and the site adjoined a residential property.

Concerns had been expressed by the Head of Transport and Traffic Management Services regarding the proposal and an objection had been received from a nearby neighbour regarding over-development, lack of parking and hazardous waste.

Miss Parker stated that whilst Planning Officers noted that the surgery was a community facility that played an important role for local residents, the site had not been originally designed to accommodate a community medical facility and there were concerns that the surgery had been extended a number of times over the years and was now attempting to extend beyond what the site could reasonably accommodate.

The Council’s ‘Extending your Home’ Supplementary Planning Document was referred to and whilst this was not strictly applicable, its principles relating to the impact of extensions on residential amenity were still relevant.

Miss Parker outlined the Council’s Highways Officer’s concerns regarding the proposed car parking for the site which could result in cars reversing onto the footway and carriageway to the detriment of highway safety.

The proposal had been considered and balanced against the public benefits of expanding and improving a community facility, however it was considered to constitute overdevelopment and would have unacceptable impacts on residential amenity, public amenity and highway safety and the Committee was recommended to refuse planning permission as stated in the officer report.

Mr Richard Maudsley, Agent for the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He informed the committee that the surgery intended to provide four new consulting rooms to complement the existing overstretched practice and outlined the services that the surgery already provided. If the surgery did not expand then it may be forced to stop taking on new patients or close. The extension would provide new facilities that would enhance patient access and reduce pressure on hospitals. The surgery was a successful training practice that trained additional GPs, which was beneficial to the Blackpool area, given the national GP shortage.

Mr Maudsley noted that the objection had been received from a resident to the south east of Lennox Gate and not directly adjacent to the property. He stated that the application was sustainable in terms of car parking and that a bus stop was located directly outside the property. The proposed design was the most viable in terms of residential amenity with substantial greenery to the boundary of the property. He stated that in his view the proposal did not conflict with the Council’s priorities and asked the Committee to approval the application.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the number of extensions that had been carried out on the building and the concerns regarding parking spaces.

In respect to a query regarding the land ownership around the site, Miss Parker confirmed that the council owned the land to the side and some form of extension there with increased parking to the rear could be explored if the Clinical Commissioning Group were prepared to acquire the land. However this did not form part of the application before the Committee.

The Committee noted that most modern medical centres were seeking to be open plan and spacious and the proposed extension was not an asset to the current building.

Resolved: That the application is refused for the reasons set out in the Planning Officer’s report.