Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 9 to 46.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included: 

·         a correction to the summary section of the report, the site was to the left of Hollow Lane;

·         label Informatives below condition 8;

·         paragraph 23 had an error in numbering, re number changed to 24 and numbered up subsequent paragraphs;

·         paragraph 50, the flats would meet internal space standards;

·         paragraph 51, the balconies would range from a minimum of 9m² to 20m².

Elizabeth Fowler, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. She stated that this application was a reserved matter and that application 180757 was also brought to the Committee so that they could be considered together. She added that the facility would provide 80 extra care units for residents over 55 years of age whom were in need of some amount of care. She stated that there would be communal facilities for residents and that the facility would be adaptable in terms of care. Elizabeth added that resident’s spouses could move in as at any time.  

Barrie Patman, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he was representing all of Shinfield South’s ward Members’. He stated that this was to be a flagship development in a prime real estate area which would be a showcase for Shinfield South and which needed to be in keeping with the existing surroundings. He felt that the four storey design was not in keeping with the surrounding area and that the external appearance of the property did not stand out as a showcase development should. He stated that he had concerns with the appearance of the balconies. He added his sympathy with the Parish council and their concerns.

Christopher Howard, Case Officer, clarified a number of Member concerns. He stated that the proposed development was no higher than the approved  parameters. He added that the extra space provided by the fourth storey was necessary to ensure  the care provider has the minimum amount of space and  bedrooms to operate the facility at a profit. He continued by stating that the four storey design was designed to differentiate the new building with  the adjacent properties. . He stated that the development would act as an ‘entrance’ to the new village centre and that the balconies provided useful and necessary outdoor space for the residents and broke up the mass of the building.

In response to Member queries regarding the lack of sprinkler’s in the proposed design Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – SDL Planning Delivery, clarified that this was a building regulation consideration rather than a planning issue. 

Chris Easton, Service Manager – Highways Development, clarified a number of concerns from Members’ regarding car parking. He stated that the proposed car parking arrangement complied with the Council’s policies. He added that a car parking management strategy would be in place at the facility. In response to a query regarding disabled car parking, Chris Easton clarified that five spaces had been marked up for disabled parking and the management of the car park could mark up further spaces as and when needed. Whilst spaces are currently shown as marked up as disabled spaces it is for the facility to manage and as such until disabled spaces are required, it would be advisable to not mark any up as they may not be used and would reduce the level of available parking on site for all users.  

A number of Members’ voiced their concerns about the appearance of the building. They felt that the design looked ‘dated’ and did not stand out as a showcase design. Christopher Howard stated that this concern was subjective. Councillor Bowring added that an appeal had rejected a refusal based on appearance in the past.

RESOLVED: That application 180758 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 11 to 14.