Planning Committee - 2nd July 2013 - Newark and Sherwood ...

• Removal of trees will deprive residents of numerous songbirds which nest in them,
including tawny owls and jays.
• Would not oppose two single storey dwellings but request maximum number of trees to be
retained and request that evergreen trees are planted to protect privacy on perimeters of
the site.
Comments of the Director of Growth
I consider that the main issues in assessing this application relate to the principle of demolition
(including an assessment of the loss of the community facility as well as the building itself) and of
further housing in this location, likely impacts in terms of design and layout, amenity and highway
matters. Each matter shall be discussed in turn.
Technically the hydrotherapy pool is/was a community facility and consequently should be
assessed against SP8 which states that the loss of existing community and leisure facilities will not
be permitted unless they can be clearly justified.
The building was previously used by the NHS as a Hydrotherapy Pool, which historically formed
part of the Balderton Hospital complex. Following the demolition of the main hospital buildings,
the building remained in use until 2007. I understand from the applicants that despite investment,
there were continuing problems with leakage and ultimately structural failure. Its poor condition
meant that the facility required a complete rebuild which was uneconomical having regard to cost
and location. The property has been on the market (for sale) for approximately 18 months on the
basis of its existing use but there has been no serious interest and the only interest ceased when
the full extent of the structural condition became apparent. As such the redundant and dated
building is now considered not viable for reuse as a hydrotherapy pool. Furthermore like in many
organisations faced with the task of reducing expenditure, the NHS Trust has concluded that it is
not financially sustainable to own and maintain its own pool and now operates by sharing
resources across the county with other organizations. Provision is now being met with existing
dedicated facilities. As such I am satisfied that the loss of the albeit redundant community facility
is justified and does not conflict with SP8 of the Development Plan.
The building is of a bespoke design and is of no architectural merit. The redundant site does, in my
view, have a negative impact upon the appearance of the area and I have no objection to the loss
of building in principle. Condition 3 of the original consent for the new settlement requires that
this building be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. I take
the view that this application fulfills the requirement of that condition. A legal view has been
sought regarding whether this application triggers a requirement to vary the wider Fernwood
Masterplan (in addition to the outcome of this application) and this matter will be reported
verbally as necessary to the Planning Committee.
The application has been made in outline form, with all matters reserved for up to three dwellings.
The issue is therefore, taking into account the scale parameters set out, whether we are satisfied
that the site could accommodate up to three dwellings without representing over intensive
development that is cramped and without causing amenity issues. I note the comments from the
Parish Council and local resident that this application should be made in full. However I am
satisfied that we have sufficient information to take an informed view on whether the proposal
would be acceptable in principle.
91