Agenda item

The Case Officer presented the proposed floor plans and explained the proposed use for two flats on the first floor and a health centre on the ground floor. He explained that Members sought a deferral regarding clarity on the use of the ground floor and the applicant had confirmed their view that they consider the proposed use would fall within use class E, being for the provision of medical or health services, principally to visiting members of the public. He advised they had provided details of intended hours of opening, and a new recommended condition for operating hours for 09:00-20:00 Monday to Friday, and 09:00-17:00 9-5pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays was now proposed by Officers. He advised the applicant had not provided answers to other questions, such as whether the ‘health clinic’ would be open to ‘walk in’ visiting members of public, or by pre-appointment only. He advised Members that as a former ice-cream parlour (use class E(b)), the authorised use of the ground floor was considered to fall within use class E, and use for another purpose under use class E would not comprise “development” for planning purposes. He advised that the applicant claimed the proposed use would fall within use class E(e), which, on the limited information given, would suggest development would not be taking place. At the rear of the site a new entrance would be created for access to the flats above.

The Chairman explained there was one speaker on this application, Councillor Jeanette McGhee, Ward Member for Gainsborough South-West.

Councillor McGhee addressed the Committee and explained she was aware of the charity planning to use and operate the health centre. She commended the charity for doing a fantastic job, but she was aware of the type of service users who would be potentially accessing the services and objected to the location of the site. She understood that with the complexities of life, a variety of people could benefit from the service, but the Council had received no input with the existing health centre this Charity ran, and it was felt it would be replicated in the town centre. The priority was not to demonise or stigmatise people using the service but consider their wellbeing and privacy using the service. The town centre location was not appropriate, and safeguards needed to be in place to protect individuals accessing help.

Members commended Councillor McGhee for putting the points across so eloquently and compassionately.

Members expressed disappointment that the application had been deferred and the applicant had refused to give more information to Members. Members urged the charity to work alongside the Council to ensure that safeguards were in place and the appropriate location could be put forward for the health centre. It was felt that the health centre would affect the regeneration of Gainsborough town centre and have a detrimental impact on those using the service, in a location surrounded by pubs and restaurants.

The Case Officer advised Members that the application included change of use to the ground floor for a “health centre”, however did not specify use class E. The applicant claimed this would fall within use class E(e), which would not comprise development. The Case Officer noted that planning policy supported class E uses, and the local planning authority would need to be satisfied that the ground floor was only for such use. He recommended to the Committee a condition restricting use only for purposes under class E would be advisable. He also advised the Committee that they could restrict opening hours on amenity grounds if they considered it necessary.

Members proposed a condition to amend the operating hours of the health centre to reduce to 09:00 to 18:00 during the week, closing at 6pm rather than 8pm, and restrict the use to Class E. This would mean the operating hours would be in line with public transport for users accessing site and to reduce the footfall during the town’s night economy with nearby restaurants and pubs in the area.

Having been proposed and seconded. Upon a vote for the proposed condition, there were 4 votes for and 5 votes against the proposed condition. The vote was lost.

Members felt they were unable to vote for the application, without knowing all of the relevant information to inform their decision as they had moral and planning obligations as Members of the Planning Committee, and could not be certain on the impacts of the proposed ground floor use upon the town centre or on the amenity of those living in the proposed flats.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of inadequate information to ascertain the impacts of the ground floor use. Members encouraged the charity to work with the council and engage so that a better solution could be brought forward.

On taking the vote, it was agreed that planning permission be REFUSED on the basis that adequate information had been provided to ascertain the impacts of the ground floor use.