PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA - Hartlepool Borough Council

4.1
UPDATE REPORT
No: 4
Number:
H/2008/0531
Applicant:
Mr MATT MATHARU STATION LANE H ARTLEPOOL
TS25 1BG
Agent:
S J R Architects Suite 101 The Innovation Centre
Venture Court Queens Meadow Business Park
HARTLEPOOL TS25 5TG
Date valid: 08/09/2008
Development: Outline application for the erection of a 30 bed residential
care home with associated car parking
Location:
34 STATION LANE H ARTLEPOOL H ARTLEPOOL
4.1 The original committee report did not detail that amended plans had been
received and were out to further consultation with the surrounding residents. Since
the writing of the report an e-mail of objection (copy attached) has been received in
relation to the amended plans which cites the following reasons:
1. the proposed new building is far too high and is completely out of keeping with
the area.
2. concerns that the objector will lose all natural sunlight from midday onwards,
due to the height of the rear of the building which is much higher than the
existing building.
3. yet another of Seaton Carew’s original buildings will be lost forever, further
undermining the history and appeal of the area.
4. precedent.
5. no reason why the existing building cannot be renovated to bring it up to the
current care requirements.
4.2 A response has been received from the Adult and Community Services Team,
who consider that they can see the benefit of replacing an outdated home with one
that meets modern standards. However they do not feel the second floor lends itself
to being able to ensure people’s needs can be met or observations easily carried
out. It is likely that the number of staff on duty at any one time will mean it will be
difficult to cover all 3 floors at a time.
4.3 The Adult and Community Services team also have concerns in terms of the
access to and from the rear of the building which seems very tight, they wonder if
egress in case of an evacuation from the rear of the property for people in
wheelchairs was acceptable. In terms of Building Regulations the means of escape
would be acceptable.
4.4 The committee report was written having regard to the amended plans. Further
the original report stated that the application was for outline approval with all matters
reserved for future condition. This was incorrect as the applicant seeks approval for
access, appearance, layout and scale, with only landscaping as a reserved matter.
W:\CSword\Democratic Ser vices\COMMITTEES\PLANNING CTTEE\R eports \Reports - 2008 - 2009\09.02.25\Updat es\4.1 -
Planni ng - 09. 02. 25 - 4 - RPS 34 Stati on Lane.DOC 1