Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved except for access, for the proposed erection of a 64 bed care home (Use Class C2) with site access, parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works following demolition of existing commercial buildings.

Applicant: Bewley Homes

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 109 to 214.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

• Access at Blagrove Lane
• Revised Growth Strategy
• Future C3 Provision
• Wokingham Town Council Comments
• Briefing note prepared by the applicant shared with the Committee
• Correction p119 bullet point 4 ‘Notwithstanding, on balance, the minor incursion into greenfield land does not outweigh the benefits the proposal presents’

All members of the committee attended a site visit except Councillors Smith and Skuse.

Louise Timlin, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. She emphasised to the Committee that this application was in an unsustainable location and added that there were a lack of bus services for residents, staff and visitors. She explained that the access from Blagrove Lane could not take extra traffic, there were issues with a lack of footpaths and narrow roads regarding the safety of residents, she referenced the loss of biodiversity as a negative.

Ian Andrews, resident, spoke in objection to the application. He noted that the application was only looking at access to the site and was surprised to see a report about the care home itself. He referenced policy CP4 and felt the entrance was in a dangerous location on a single-track road. He explained that traffic turning out of the new site would back up traffic to Evendons Lane. He explained that a recent sinkhole issue had backed up traffic along the road, increasing traffic on Blagrave Lane, and that this had been a disaster. He referenced another 30 bed care home and how he had heard of the 24/7 nature of that site with 60 cars per day at the site as well as visitors. 

Peter Home, agent, spoke in favour of the application. He commented that due to the status of the  Council’s Local Plan and Housing Land Supply, the tilted balance applied, meaning that the application should be granted approval unless the impact of doing so significantly and demonstratively outweighed the benefits when assessed against policy. He mentioned that there was a significant unmet need for care within the Borough. He added that the site was previously developed. He stressed that the applicant’s team had worked with officers to minimise harm and to fit the site into the existing landscape. He mentioned that the new access was safer than the current one and confirmed there would be a minibus for staff use. There had been no objections from statutory consultees.  The site would provide 50 new jobs and there was a biodiversity net gain.

Sarah Kerr, ward member, spoke in objection to the application. She felt the negative aspects had been significantly down played in the officer report. She quoted the planning inspector’s comments made in relation to previous applications, who had said that the site would encroach on urban land and was undeveloped. She commented that the application would have a massive visual impact. A lot of the land was farmland, and that this application would negatively affect the animals. Councillor Kerr questioned the sustainability of the site and explained that the residents would be forced to use cars as it was not safe for walking and cycling. Local facilities were some distance away.  She added that the proposed level of parking was insufficient. . She also mentioned that the application would put the Council in financial danger with a Social Care Reform Bill coming.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey asked for comment on the viability of the access to the site as well as comment on the need in the Borough for care for dementia patients. Gordon Adam confirmed that the access went through the normal safety audit process, and it was considered within standards and safe, subject to the design which would be secured by condition. Benjamin Hindle, case officer added that with regards to previous applications, access had not formed part of the reason for refusal, and that the location of the access was safe. . The case officer also provided the Committee with statistics relating to care need in the Borough and emphasised a large need for rooms for dementia patients in care homes.  He highlighted the Planning Inspectors comments regarding the Council’s needs figures.

Councillor Firmager asked about the speed limit on Evendons Lane. The case officer explained that the speed limit went up from 30mph to 60mph, 10 metres from the existing access to the site.  This in part had formed the rationale behind the access on Blagrove Lane.  A pedestrian crossing would act as natural traffic calming.  Gordon Adam suggested that more people would access via Evendons Lane as it was more direct to Finchampstead Road.

Councillor Skuse asked if any assessment had been carried out through different times of day, to consider the primary school at the end of Evendons Lane, which increased traffic at drop off and pick up times as well as parking on the street. The case officer told the Committee that the school cannot prejudice planning considerations but that there was nothing stopping parents parking on the road as there were no parking restrictions in place. Gordon Adam explained that as part of the management plan deliveries, where possible, would be outside of school time.

Councillor Mickleburgh asked for clarity on the nature of the traffic using the site. It was outlined that many types of vehicles used the site, staff using cars, buses and minibuses as well as deliveries and visitors more infrequently. Councillor Mickleburgh questioned the current footprint of the site and what it would be with the new site. The case officer commented that the previous appeal decision related to a wider site and had included the part which had been fully designated for biodiversity net gain.  The overall site area was significantly lower with the new site. He added that there was a biodiversity net gain due to the retention of a green space and this retention was tied down by 30 year legal agreement. Councillor Mickleburgh asked for clarity on whether the financial cost for the council was a material planning consideration. The case officer confirmed this was not a material planning consideration and did not hold any weight.

Councillor Soane asked why the existing access could not have a swept corner and what the difference in safety would be if this was the case. The case officer explained that if the access was widened it would require the built form to move northwards, which would encroach into the countryside. The Blagrove Lane access prevented an encroachment into the countryside. Councillor Soane also asked for data regarding accident records near the access to the site. Gordon Adam explained that the only accident records that were kept were casualty records and that there were none in the past 5 years.

Councillor Smith asked what the shortfall was in terms of care need. The case officer explained that the overall shortfall was 825 beds in the Borough. Councillor Smith also questioned why there was no trips data in the report. Gordon Adam stated that data around the existing and proposed was given in the comments on the application.  Such data could be included in future reports to assist the Committee in their deliberations.

Councillor Neal asked if there were any plans to improve the road safety of the area. It was confirmed that Highways currently had no plans to make changes.

Councillor Cornish mentioned the idea of quiet roads and wanted quiet roads to be looked at as a concept in the areas surrounding the site, especially Evendons Lane and Blagrove Lane and referenced the Council’s Active Travel scheme and how quiet roads would help in this respect. Councillor Cornish then asked whether it was possible to move the 30mph speed limit as far west as possible. Gordon Adam explained that this would have to be included in the Section 106 agreement as they would need a contribution from the developer. Councillor Cornish sought clarity on whether shifting the entrance would disturb the built form of the site. The case officer confirmed that shifting the entrance would have a bigger spacial impact. Councillor Cornish emphasised the difference between 60 dwellings and a 60 bed care home, the case officer added that 60 dwellings would be in contrary to CP6.

Councillor Smith asked if the trip movements would be higher or lower at the proposed site compared to the current site. It was confirmed that they would be lower.

Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, sought clarity from the committee on whether the change to the speed limit was a formal recommendation.

Councillor Mickleburgh asked that Wokingham Borough Council engaged with the applicant to explore the possibility of funding changes of the speed limit as a part of the Section 106 agreement.

It was proposed by Councillor Skuse and seconded by Councillor Mickleburgh that the application be approved.

RESOLVED: That application 231531 be approved subject to

A) Completion of a legal agreement (S106) to secure the following HoT (Head of Terms):

• Framework Travel Plan (Including Minibus Provision)

• Off-site Pedestrian Crossing (Infrastructure Improvements)

• Biodiversity Net Gain

• Employment Skills Plan

B) Conditions and informatives as set out in Appendix 1 (subject to any additions and updates agreed with the Assistant Director – Place and Growth between the date of the resolution and the issue of the decision):

C) Alternative recommendation: That the committee authorise the Head of Development Management to refuse planning permission in the event of an S106 agreement not being completed to secure appropriate contributions within six months of the date of the committee resolution (unless a longer period is agreed by the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Committee) for the following reason:

1) In the absence of a planning obligation to secure suitable contributions / off site works for the following:

It has not been possible to secure the adequate mitigation put forward to justify development in an unsustainable location which fails to account for ecological enhancements. This is contrary to Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP6 and TB23.