Mobile polyclinic owners apply to stay on car park for five years

An application to allow the continued use of the Union Street Car Park for the siting of the mobile polyclinic for a period of five years commencing from the date of expiry of the existing consent has been submitted by Care UK.

The current permission for the siting of the polyclinic will expire on 3 July 2014.

The clinic operates on a four week cycle and spends five consecutive days in the first fortnight and four consecutive days in the second fortnight on the site. A separate endoscopy unit is in place during one of the intervening periods for five days – resulting in the polyclinic being present for a total 14 days in each monthly cycle. The site reverts back to a car park for the other 14 days in this cycle. The land is privately owned and the car park is managed independently of other surrounding Council car parks on behalf of the landowner.

One objection has been lodged from a nearby trader: 'The siting of the units severely reduces the availability of parking for customers of surrounding shops – particularly those on Cheetham Street and Yorkshire Street. This deters customers from shopping at these businesses and frequent complaints are received that customers have difficulty finding a parking space when the polyclinic is on the site. This is exacerbated by the irregular and unpredictable patterns of the clinic and the lack of prior knowledge as to when it will be sited within the car park.

In response to the objection, planning officers, who are recommending the proposal be approved, say: 'The applicant has submitted an updated survey (May 2013) regarding the usage of surrounding car parks when the polyclinic occupies the site and when it is free to be used for public car parking. The results of the survey indicate that spare capacity (and more than was observed during the May 2012 survey exists within surrounding car parks whether the clinic is present on the site or not.

'These findings are supported by those of officers from surveys undertaken in both 2012 and 2013.'

A number of objections were received in respect of the previous application stating that more suitable sites for the polyclinic exist outside the town centre.

However, the potential availability of alternative sites which may be considered
more desirable by local traders is immaterial to whether the Union Street site represents an appropriate location for the use in accordance with the planning considerations.

There is no policy requirement for the applicant to demonstrate a sequential approach
to site selection and, therefore, permission could not be refused on the basis of the availability of alternative sites.

The applicant has sought an opinion from Counsel (John Hunter – Kings Chambers) which supports this view with reference to Trusthouse Forte Hotels LTD v Secretary of State for the Environment (1986), which concludes that:

Land (irrespective of whether it is owned by the applicant for planning permission) may be developed in any way which is acceptable for planning purposes. The fact that other land exists (whether or not in the applicant's ownership) upon which the development would be yet more acceptable for planning purposes would not justify the refusal of planning permission upon the application site.

Since its launch on the Union Street site, Care UK has delivered “almost 23,000 consultant appointments”. The clinic “sees approximately 940 patients each month, with 40-50% of users travelling into Rochdale from areas outside the town”.

Rochdale Township Planning Committee will consider the application at a planning meeting this evening (24 September).