AT Lathbury Manor Residential Home, Northampton Road, Lathbury

Transcription

1 APP 06 Application Number: 13/00928/FUL Other Conversion of second floor flat into 5 residential care bedrooms, including new lift & internal fire escape stair to serve 3 floors (resubmission of 13/00530/FUL) AT Lathbury Manor Residential Home, Northampton Road, Lathbury FOR Value Care Ltd Target: 4th July 2013 Ward: Sherington Parish: Lathbury Parish Meeting Report Author/Case Officer: Debbie Kirk Contact Details: [email protected] Head of Team: Jackie Fox Contact Details: [email protected] 1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about) 1.1 The main section of the report set out below draws together the core issues in relation to the application including policy and other key material considerations. This is supplemented by an appendix which brings together, planning history, additional matters and summaries of consultees responses and public representations. Full details of the application, including plans, supplementary documents, consultee responses and public representations are available on the Council s Public Access system All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation. 1.2 The Site Lathbury Manor is a detached three storey Grade II listed building located on the corner of Northampton Road and Church Street. The building was constructed in the first part of the Nineteenth Century as a coaching inn, but was subsequently used as a farmhouse. The property has been used for the last twenty years as a twenty two bedroom residential care home for 23 residents with an ancillary 3 bedroomed flat located on the second floor. A car park for eleven vehicles is provided to the rear of the building and is accessed off Church Street. A communal garden is located at the rear of the property. To the north, east and west there are residential dwelling houses. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

2 1.3 The Proposal This application seeks planning consent for the conversion of second floor flat into 5 residential care bedrooms, including new lift and internal fire escape stair to serve 3 floors (resubmission of 13/00530/FUL). The application was accompanied by a combined Design and Access and Heritage Statement and an Economic Statement. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report. 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application) 2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Para 14 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Para 39 Parking Paras 56, 57, 60, 61,63,64 Design 69 Social Interaction and Creating Healthy Communities (Crime) 70 Provision of Community Facilities 128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,140,141 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment 186, 187, 196, 197 Decision Making 2.2 Local Policy Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan C1 Location of Community Facilities C2 Loss of Community Facilities HE2-HE5 Listed Buildings D1 Impact of Development Proposals On Locality T15 Parking 2.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) 2.4 Core Strategy CS19 Healthier, Safer Communities CS20 Historic and Natural Environment 3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision) The principle of development. 2. Whether the impact of the changes on the listed building would address the previous reasons for refusal.

3 3. Whether adequate car parking would be provided. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee) 4.1 It is recommended that on balance, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in section 6 of this report. 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation) 5.1 Principle of Development The current development consists of a 22 bedroom care home on the ground and first floors and the second floor consists of a vacant three bedroom, two reception room apartment. This was the former owner's personal residential living accommodation. The previous owners who converted the original farmhouse into a care home with an ancillary residential flat sold the business last year and moved out of the residential flat on the second floor. Since this time the residential flat has remained empty. As there is no longer any requirement for ancillary living accommodation, the current owners are now seeking to convert this flat into five extra bedrooms to be used in association with the existing care home. The proposed conversion of the second floor into five extra bedrooms for the care home would be acceptable in principle and would comply with policies C1 and C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan This proposal would increase the bed space for people in the Borough with dementia who need specialist care. The Senior Joint Commissioner, Adult Community Services has raised no objections to the proposals. 5.2 The Impact of the Changes to the Listed Building The proposals include alterations to the basement, ground, first and second floors to allow a lift access and stairwell to be provided. The changes to the second floor apartment include; the provision of a lift shaft and a new stairwell internally in an area which currently provides a shower room, bathroom and airing cupboard and the subdivision of an existing kitchen into a communal bathroom and WC to two adjoining bedrooms. The Council's Conservation Officer has been consulted and advises that no objection to the principle of changing the use of the second floor flat. 5.3 However, previous application 13/00530/FUL was refused planning consent due to "the cumulative impact of proposed alterations to the listed building would have a harmful impact on the buildings character and feature of special architectural and historic interest. The development would be contrary to policy HE4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and advise in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012". A key consideration with this application is whether the reasons for refusal have been satisfactorily addressed.

4 5.4 The ground and first floors of the rear wing have been substantially subdivided previously, which has had a significant impact on the floor plan and character of this part of the building. In the main building the first floor has also been previously substantially subdivided to create bedrooms and bathrooms/wcs, and this has had a significant impact on the character of this part of the building, causing a level of harm which is not desirable to replicate in new proposed works. 5.5 The basement, ground floor and second floor of the main building have retained more of their historic floor plan and character, although these have some alterations- such as the insertion of the 2 bathrooms to the second floor flat. As so much of the rest of the building has already been subject to significant alteration, it is preferable to retain the existing character of these areas, and make sympathetic use of these existing spaces. 5.6 Basement: The only alterations here are the formation of staff toilet cubicles and the lift well in the rear right hand room. 5.7 Ground Floor The ground floor is characterised by its central entrance door, into lobby leading to a spacious hall, with a very fine historic staircase rising from it. It has 4 doors off it into lounge/ dining rooms, with one being subdivided with an existing office area. This room and the lounge next to it appear they may have been in this form for some time, particularly given the location of the chimney breast, which is central to the wall within the existing proportions of the lounge. The Conservation Officer does not object to the removal of this partition to create a larger lounge, as a large room of the main hall is in keeping with the character of the building. This will create 4 large, well proportioned rooms on the ground floor. There is then access off the rear of the hall to the rear garden, and also to the corridor leading to the rear wing and current lift. 5.8 It is proposed to position the new lift within one of these 4 principle rooms, in one of the rear lounges, with a new opening through the rear wall of the main building that both the Conservation Officer and English Heritage object to due to the impact of the proportion of the original room. The proposed positioning of the new fire escape and stairs appears acceptable. 5.9 First floor: The proposed location of the lift is in an area that has previously been subdivided and forms an existing bathroom Second floor: The application seeks to convert the second floor flat into five rooms. The current proposal also seeks the provision of a lift shaft and a new stairwell

5 internally in an area which currently provides a shower room, bathroom and airing cupboard and the subdivision of an existing kitchen into a communal bathroom and WC to two adjoining bedrooms. The Conservation Officer considers that whilst a number of previous concerns relating to applications 13/00330/LBC and 13/00530/FUL, particularly the subdivision of the second floor, have been addressed through this application, and this new second floor layout appears acceptable, the concerns about the lift and the ground floor layout have not been fully explored or overcome Impact of A New Lift On the Listed Building One of the applicant s initial pre-application proposals was for an external lift. This option has been more fully considered, and when drawn up it unfortunately confirmed the Conservation Officer's original doubts about this option, and would have a harmful impact on the external appearance of the building Whilst, the internal option for the proposed lift is arguably slightly less harmful than the external impact, this in itself does not provide sufficient justification, as both the Conservation Officer and English Heritage consider that this option still causes a level of harm to the significance of the interior, impacting on the floor plan and character of the rear lounge. In line with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 132 and 134 any harm should be fully justified, and balanced against any benefits Installing a secondary lift internally from first to second floor, whilst leaving the existing lift in situ from ground to first floor, is a further option which has been explored by the applicant. The applicant's engineer's have advised that an additional structure would be required to support the static and dynamic loads produced by the lift. The beam depths will have to be deeper than the existing floor joists. The applicant's agent advises that any alterations will require considerable alteration to the existing ceiling and wall finishes, which would also be harmful to the character and appearance of interior of the listed building. The applicant's agent consider's that the insertion of a lift in the corner of a room, could be seen as a temporary modern intervention that could potentially be removed at a later date. The proposed new staircase does not add to the loading on the existing structure and any trimming of the floor opening would be accommodated within the existing floor depths at second floor level The existing lift cannot be retained, because on the ground floor the new fire escape stair terminates within the existing corridor, completely blocking it, requiring the corridor to be diverted around it, of necessity, passing through the space occupied by the existing lift motor room, hence the need to replace the existing lift with a platform lift that does not require a separate motor room There are two reasons why a stair lift on the new fire escape stair is impractical. Firstly, there are minimum widths for fire escape stairs, with which the current scheme complies, the introduction of a stair lift rail, the applicant

6 advises, will require additional width, in addition there will be the requirement for much larger landings to accommodate the transfer of residents from wheelchair to stair lift seat which cannot be readily accommodated at either first or second floor levels. Secondly, there is an operational issue, stair lifts are designed to be operated by the person requiring to go up or down, in most cases the residents of this care home, are not capable of doing this, which means a member of staff ascending or descending the stairs alongside the stair lift seat. It has always been the policy within this care home that residents do not use the stairs, except in emergency, for very obvious health and safety reasons, but the installation of a stair lift will mean residents in stair wells, with all the problems inherent in that The suggestion by both English Heritage and the Conservation Officer that perhaps the second floor could be used for storage, instead of accommodation, has been dismissed by the applicant, as there is absolutely no requirement for this amount of storage, in the Care Home, and even if there was, a second floor storage area, would require some form of lift to access it. The property currently has an extensive attic and basement for storage. The applicant considers that "it would appear a complete misuse of the building given its registration as a care home, and the shortage and continual demand for care accommodation in smaller more traditional homes such as ours. It may only be a marginal addition to local provision, but this makes it no less important to the local community, and certainly critical to the success of our business" In terms of the economic benefits of the proposed development the applicant advises that "the proposed development would secure the future of the business which is only three bed spaces away from being a loss making business. Profitability for Lathbury is dependant on having no more than two beds empty, with three empty beds the business becomes vulnerable. As we have found being with three empty beds can happen very quickly as it has happened over the last year several times for Lathbury Manor. Even short period's of time with empty beds causes problems with the bank, as the covenant associated with the loan means we have to achieve a minimum profit level for the year or the banks could repossess the business. Being even two beds down mean we struggle to meet this covenant. The Bank supported the acquisition of Lathbury on the basis that we could develop the top floor for additional residents thus taking us over the 22 bed situation. We took pre-planning advice which suggested that it would be possible to develop the top floor, hence the bank supporting the proposition. With an additional four beds that developing the top floor would provide we can go three empty and still maintain profitability; future proof the business and meet the banks covenants". The pre-application advice given by Officer's stated that whilst the change of use of the second floor may be acceptable in principle, gaining lift access to it was going to be difficult, and there was not an obvious solution, with all options having some level of significant harm, which may preclude the proposed use.

7 5.18 Parking There are currently 11 existing parking spaces provided on hard standing to the rear of the care home which are accessed off Church Street. Under the Parking Standards For Milton Keynes a Care Home is required to provided 1 parking space per 2 bedrooms. Therefore a proposal for five additional bedrooms would be required to provide 3 additional parking spaces. The applicant has resized the existing 11 spaces to form ten 5 metre x 2.5 metres spaces and provided four additional spaces on existing garden land. The parking bays must be marked out on site to ensure that the parking space is fully used for the 14 spaces. Concerns have been raised regarding parking on Church Lane and the reduction in bedrooms proposed may reduce the demand for parking Concerns have been raised regarding parking on Church Lane and the reduction in bedrooms proposed may reduce the demand for parking. It may be that at certain times there could be additional visitors to the property unrelated to the proposed change. It may also be unrelated to the Lathbury Manor complex.the applicant may consider that providing or permitting some additional visitor parking in front of the garage for short periods could alleviate some problems Church Lane varies in width reducing in parts to a single car width and in others being wide enough for a vehicle to pass a parked car. Church Lane is narrow at the junction with Northampton Road. The issue of the parked cars in the vicinity of the application site causing an obstruction could be managed by the introduction of waiting restrictions after public consultation; however these would impact on all residents on this section of Church Lane and with this being a rural location would be difficult to enforce The Highway Engineer has assessed the submitted plans and advises that the visibility from the access to Church Lane is acceptable and that the additional four parking bays for the increase in bedrooms and staff in this location are acceptable. The parking spaces are of an acceptable width. The Highway Engineer raises no objections to the proposed development Conclusion The applicant has addressed all the Conservation Officer's and English Heritage previously raised objections, with the exception of the installation of a new lift in the corner of a principal room on the ground floor. The main concern is about retaining the proportions in one of the four principal rooms on the ground floor. Although, this proposed scheme would return one principal room to its original form, it would cause harm to another through the installation of a lift shaft in the corner of another, thereby still retaining three principal ground floor rooms intact. Other options for the lift have been explored both internally and externally, all would result in some degree of harm to the fabric of the listed building. The key issue to consider is whether or not the harm caused to one of the principal ground floor rooms in this Grade II listed building would outweigh the economic benefits of re-using the

8 second floor to provide five additional bed spaces for people with dementia requiring care in a specialist care home, thereby enabling the business to expand and remain sustainable. The parking for the proposed development would accord with the Parking Standards For Milton Keynes and the visibility from the access to Church Lane is considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the economic benefits of proposed development are on balance considered to outweigh the harm caused to a ground floor principal room, the development should be permitted with the conditions set out in section CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable ) 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (D11) 2. The development shall not be occupied until the car parking area (and turning area) shown on the George Powell Registered Architect drawing number 2713/20 REV F received on has been constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose at any time.(p01) Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway. 3. A full arboricultural impact assessment, tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement all in accordance with BS 5837: 2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' for all the trees within the site or adjacent to the site which will or could be affected by the proposals shall be submitted for approval. Reasons: In the interests of the setting of listed building and to ensure adequate protection of existing trees to be retained 4. All existing trees to be retained are to be protected according to the provisions of BS 5837: 2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' All protective measures especially the fencing and ground protection must be put in place first, prior to any other work commencing on site (this includes vegetation clearance, ground-works, vehicle movements, machinery / materials delivery etc.) The fencing shall be of the same specification as that depicted in figure 2, page 20 and ground

9 protection as specified in pages 21/22 in BS 5837: Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs per separate stretch of fencing. Once erected the local authority tree officer shall be notified so the fencing can be inspected and approved. The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, service runs, water-logging, changes in level, building materials and all other operations, personnel, structures, tools, storage and materials, for the duration of the construction phase. The developer shall submit details of the proposed layout and general arrangements of the site in relation to the trees to be retained. In particular details of storage areas including what substances will stored and where, locations of car parking, welfare facilities, cement plant, fuel storage and where discharge, filling and mixing of substances will take place. The details should include site levels to enable risks posed to tree to be quantified. The RPA will be amended as the arboriculture officer feels appropriate after taking account of the details submitted. No fire shall be lit such that it is closer than 20 metres to any tree or that flames would come within 5 metres of any part of any tree. Earthworks, service runs, foundations and all other works involving excavation should not be located within the root protection areas. Reasons: In the interests of the setting of listed building and to ensure adequate protection of existing trees to be retained

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Appendix to 13/00928/FUL A1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case) A1.1 13/00330/LBC Listed building consent for conversion of second floor flat into 6 residential care bedrooms and installation of internal lift and fire escape staircase Refused Listed Building Consent Reason: "The cumulative impact of proposed alterations to the listed building would have a harmful impact on the buildings character and feature of special architectural and historic interest. The development would be contrary to policy HE4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and advise in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012". 13/00530/FUL Conversion of second floor flat into 6 residential care bedrooms and installation of internal lift and fire escape staircase Refused Planning Consent Reason: The cumulative impact of proposed alterations to the listed building would have a harmful impact on the buildings character and feature of special architectural and historic interest. The development would be contrary to policy HE4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and advise in the National Planning Policy Framework /00929/LBC Listed building consent for conversion of second floor flat into 5 residential care bedrooms, including new lift & internal fire escape stair to serve 3 floors (resubmission of 13/00330/LBC) To be determined concurrently. A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS A2.1 None. (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

26 A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council s web site) Comments Officer Response A3.1 Archaeologist As this concerns internal alterations and is subject to Listed Building consent, will not be commenting further on the application. Noted. HE1 MKLP A3.2 English Heritage Response See Paras HE4 MKLP The applicant's response is not entirely reasonable. The corridor that would need to be diverted at ground floor level would run through a WC and what is shown on the plans as an area of solid walling. If this solid area is indeed a motor room the Conservation Officer has not misread the drawings, she merely does not have the psychic powers necessary to discern this. Can accept that they have now made the case the business is pretty near break even point and need to expand if the care home, which does provide a public benefit, is to remain financially secure. Their point about strengthening being necessary in order to fit a first floor platform lift is likely to be valid, they are heavy things, though whether it really would entail the sort of intervention they are talking about is a moot point. My inclination is that

27 could accept that the harm to significance can be justified by public benefit. A3.2 Response Lathbury Manor is principally of significance due to its architectural qualities, it is has a very handsome façade and the rear, while plainer, is well composed and detailed. It is also of historical interest as a late example of a coaching inn. While much of the original internal decoration has been lost key features such as the stair survive, as does the plan form. The large number of bedrooms on upper floors and the presence of no less than four spacious reception rooms on the ground floor contribute to the significance of the building as reminders of its original use. In the main the proposed alterations are either neutral, in that they only impact on later fabric, or actively enhance the significance of the building; for example the removal of partitions in one of the front rooms. However, it is inevitable that a single lift is installed running from basement to second floor will harm the significance of the building. A lift sited in the two storey extension and poking out of the roof to reach the second floor will harm the architectural qualities of the rear whilst an internal lift will subdivide the rear lounge at ground floor level. While this room has been stripped of its original fireplace and other fittings, such as the cornice, it retains its proportions and it is still possible to grasp that this was once one of the principal rooms of the coaching inn. On balance we consider that an external lift is more harmful as we consider the architectural qualities of the exterior to be of greater value than the plan form of the

28 rear room on the ground floor. Given that the proposed works would harm the significance of the building the Local Authority should only grant permission if it is content that there is clear and convincing justification for this harm (NPPF para. 132) and the public benefits of the proposal, which include securing the optimum viable use of the building, outweigh the harm (NPPF para. 134). We would advise that the Council need to be satisfied of two things if they are to consider the level of harm justified: 1. That a two lift solution, in which the current lift to the first floor remains in situ and a second, internal, lift to the second floor fitted, is not practical. This could be a hydraulic platform lift which would need no over-run or pit. While less than ideal in operational terms this approach could well be workable and the application does not indicate that it has been explored in any depth. 2. That it is necessary to extend care home operations to the second floor if this is going to remain a viable use for the building. The justification supplied makes much of the wider need for additional residential care within Milton Keynes. However, the small number of additional beds proposed to be provided at this particular home will have a negligible impact on this wider need and the argument must be framed in terms of the viability of this particular business. While there may be a strong economic case for increasing room numbers the Economic Statement supplied makes this point in only the most general terms. Financial information demonstrating the necessity for an increase in bed

29 numbers to maintain viability would be needed to make a robust case in this instance. We would also note that a low level use, such as storage, for the upper floors is not necessarily bad for the building. Provided that the roof is kept in good condition, which is a necessity regardless of the use to which this floor is put, the condition of this part of the building should not deteriorate beyond superficial wear to paint finishes. Therefore providing an intensive use for this floor is not necessary to for the continuing conservation of this building. Recommendation We urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that this application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice. A3.3 Conservation Officer Whilst a number of my previous concerns (please see comments to 13/00330/LBC and 13/00530/FUL), particularly relating to the subdivision of the second floor, have been addressed in this application, and this new second floor layout appears acceptable, the concerns about the lift and the ground floor layout have not been fully explored or overcome. See Paras HE4 MKLP At pre-app (12/00104/PRESMA) one of the applicant s initial proposals was for an external lift. This option has now been more fully considered, and when drawn up it unfortunately

30 confirmed original doubts about this option, and would have a harmful impact on the external appearance of the building. This was however useful to explore alternative options. Whilst the internal option is arguably slightly less harmful than the external impact, this in itself does not provide sufficient justification, as it still causes a level of harm to the significance of the interior, impacting on the floor plan and character of the rear lounge, as noted in my previous comments. In line with the NPPF (sections 132 and 134) any harm should be fully justified, and balanced against any benefits. Installing a secondary lift internally from first to second floor, whilst leaving the existing lift in situ from ground to first floor, may be possible and have less impact on the building. This was suggested by the applicant on site at pre-app as a possible compromise, and the reasons for discounting this have not been fully provided. Whilst this may not be the preferred option in operational terms, it could provide a lift facility to access the proposed 5 additional bedrooms, so would fulfil the wish to have a lift facility to this floor to enable the desired use. The question of whether a stair lift could be fitted to the new staircase between first and second floor has not been fully addressed, or the reasons for discounting this fully explained, as a stair lift is one of the other options suggested by the applicant at pre-app, although this was looking at installation on the historic stair which was not desirable. Why is the new stair not appropriate for such a

31 lift? Could any amendment be made to the proposed form of the new stairs to enable such a lift? I am still yet to be provided with clear evidence that convinces me that the current proposal is the only possible solution. Even if it were, this in itself does not fully justify the harm caused. The case that the top floor must be converted to ensure the future viability of the business and the continuation of the building in its optimum viable use has not been fully demonstrated, and there is no reason why the second floor couldn t remain in a low-key use. Am yet to be convinced that the harm is justified, or that a less harmful solution is not possible, as such I currently maintain objections to the proposed location of the lift. A3.4 Highways Development Control No objection. See Para T10 and T15 MKLP and Parking Standards For Milton Keynes Supplementary Planning Guidance (2005) A3.5 Senior Joint Commissioner, Adult Community Services No views to express, nor comments to make about this planning application. Noted. A3.6 Crime Prevention Design Advisor No objection Noted. D2 (vi) MKLP

32 A3.7 Landscape Technical Before any works are carried out the trees in the garden area and any other trees likely to be affected by the works should be protected according to BS 5837:2012. Specifications, details and plans of the tree protection measures should be submitted for approval. The trees are important for their contribution to the character and setting of the building and the conservation are particularly considering the recent loss of the large Chestnut tree which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. See section 6 condition 3 and 4 D1 (v) MKLP A3.8 Senior Landscape Officer No objections. Noted. D2 (v) MKLP A3.9 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Lane End House Church Lane Lathbury 1, 2, 3 and 4 Inn Farm Court Lathbury Newport Pagnell 1 Church Lane Lathbury Newport Pagnell Home Farm Northampton Road Lathbury Old Byre 5 Inn Farm Court Lathbury Puffers 2A Church Lane Lathbury The Beeches 2 Church Lane Lathbury A3.10 Public Representations Three letters of objection has been received raising the following points:

33 The development will inevitably increase the traffic to and from the home. For a considerable time, employees of and visitors to the home are frequently parked on the grass verge in Church Lane immediately opposite our home and Number 1 Church Lane. This practice is dangerous given the narrowness of Church Lane and can impede the passage of vehicles of any size above a normal passenger car. They also represent a danger to cars turning into the Lane. Frequent representations have, over time been made to the Manor with no result. Cars are regularly parked on the splay outside the front of the Manor on the Northampton Road impeding the vision of cars coming out of Church Lane on to Northampton Road close to a notoriously dangerous corner. Worse when ambulances park there. Again representations have been made through the Village Council. In preparation for writing this letter, went out on to Church Lane and there were 7 cars parked in the Lane and 6 on the splay on Northampton Road. The situation is already dangerous and irritating and any further development of the Manor can only make things worse. The wall to 2A Church Lane is regularly damaged by drivers entering or exiting the Residential Home car park- indeed, diagonally opposite to us you can see the same damage created by drivers to the Home's own wall. Appreciate and support the need for high quality care but the infrastructure to support should surely be a necessary part of this application. Concerns would also be relevant during the building programme itself in terms of access.