Agenda item

In accordance with Standing Order 33, Councillor Jerry Patterson, had declared a personal interest in this item and he remained in the room during its consideration.

The Officers reported the receipt of a letter from Councillor Gareth Jennings, who wished his comments to be addressed to the Committee in his absence.

Councillor Jennings had stated that he was concerned by the proposal as it could potentially cause problems for the current residents of the bungalows. He advised that these people had purchased their properties in the knowledge that this was a small close specifically for older people. He considered neighbourhood factions could result should the age restrictions be removed. He stated that it had been a planning condition to introduce the age restriction in the first instance and to remove it would make a mockery of the planning system.

Mr Peter Biggs spoke on behalf of Kennington Parish Council, objecting to the application.  He referred the Committee to the letter which had been written by the Parish Clerk. He advised that allowing the age restrictions to be reduced would result in the current residents leaving their properties. He advised that it was unfair that a group of people were going to be affected because someone could not sell their property.

Mr Peedle spoke on behalf of the residents, objecting to the application. He advised that he objected to the proposed reduction of the age limit. He stated that this property could be sold within the confines of the age restriction if it were marketed properly. He raised concerns over whether there would be adequate parking at the site to encompass younger residents who were more likely to own a car. He commented that there were plenty of residential areas for young people and that this application had taken no account of the needs of the elderly.

Mr Eekelaar, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He advised the Committee that he had had the property valued by a local firm of estate agents. He stated that since November 2006 he had received only one serious expression of interest and subsequently had been advised by the estate agents that but for the age restriction, the property would have easily sold. He reminded the Committee that this was not sheltered accommodation and that government policy would not allow such a condition to be imposed on an application today.

One of the local Members confirmed that this application had come to the Committee at his request. He advised that if the removal of the age restriction was permitted in this case, it would have to be permitted for all of the bungalows. He stated that in his opinion this property could sell within the confines of the age restriction if it were properly marketed. He advised that there had been no problem in selling the properties in the past; however there was evidence of current difficulty in the housing market. He commented that he would very much regret the loss of the provision of housing for the elderly and that he did not support the proposal.

One Member commented that these properties were meeting a social need in that they were small homes where a group of elderly people could live together. He considered that the current government policy was not acceptable. He stated that this was a vital and important issue with social consequences. He expressed his belief that the age limit should remain so as to protect this enclave of housing specifically for the elderly.

Another Member held the opposite view. He advised that there was no basis on which to refuse the application.

Officers confirmed that it would not be possible to require a restriction on age if this application were being presented today, given current government policy. However the Committee was advised that it might be possible to restrict occupancy to certain age groups if the property was not on the open market, e.g. that it was sheltered accommodation.

One Member commented that it did not necessarily follow that younger people would be bad neighbours. She stated that elderly people might rely on their younger neighbours for assistance.

It was proposed by the Chair that application KEN/20447 to vary condition 3 of planning permission KEN/7664 be approved and this was lost by 8 votes to 7.

It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox and by 8 votes to 7 it was

RESOLVED

that application KEN/20447 to vary the condition 3 of planning permission KEN/7664 be refused with reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee, such reasons to be based on the reason for the imposition of the condition in the original application.