Agenda item

Application No.211777 - Toutley East, Land Adjacent to Toutley Depot, West of Twyford Road, Wokingham, RG41 1XA

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Minutes:

Stephen Conway declared a prejudicial interest in this item and subsequently left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote.

 

Proposal: Outline application for up to 130 residential units and a 70-bed care home (all matters reserved except access to the site).

 

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 73 to 138.

 

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

 

·         Reference to an additional neighbour comment;

·         Extract from the minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2022 in relation to this application.

 

Matt Pope, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Matt stated that he was reading out a statement prepared by David Hare, the Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Services, who was running late. Matt stated that Toutley East was included as part of the North Wokingham SDL when the Core Strategy was adopted in 2010, and had been expressly promoted for housing within the recent Local Plan Update. The proposals would deliver a positive number of truly affordable housing which would help to meet the projected housing need of the Borough in a very sustainable location with good access to facilities and close to Wokingham Town Centre. Matt added that opportunities would be explored to reduce the carbon footprint of the site in line with the Council’s declared climate emergency, in addition to exploring options to improve biodiversity. Matt stated that David Hare was primarily passing comment to champion the proposed specialist dementia care home which was required by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) immediately. The long-term term trend for those who would require long-term dementia care was set to increase from 160 to 190 in 2025, and to 265 in 2035. Matt added that the impending reforms to adult social care in addition to increasing demand were a storm waiting to happen, and provisions needed to be made to meet this demand. Matt stated that David Hare had a constituent who was asked to leave his care home as he could become violent with staff and other patients, whilst no other care home would want to take him, whereas a WBC dementia care home could meet this type of need. The proposed care home would provide a modern and flexible type of care designed to support personalised care enabling residents to live healthy lives whilst providing better value than current provisions and ensuring enhanced in-Borough service provision for our residents. Matt stated that officers had been working hard to mitigate the problems, and added that David was confident that this facility would provide for the needs of our residents. Away from the prepared statement from David, Matt added that there was nothing of a higher priority for him than providing high quality dementia care ran by WBC.

 

Rachel Bishop-Firth, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Rachel stated that whilst she was in support of additional social and affordable housing, issues including access and noise still remained unresolved. Rachel stated that residents tended to agree that issues remained, as 36 comments of objection had been received whilst no comments of support had been submitted. Rachel felt that those with the least choice of where to live should not be placed adjacent to a motorway whereby they could not even open their windows due to excess noise. Rachel added that some gardens would see noise levels over and above acceptable levels, whilst there was currently no bus service in operation. Rachel stated that she would prefer to see the dementia care home and affordable housing placed at a more appropriate site, and added that if the Committee were minded to approve the application that the highways and access issues be made safe.

 

John Kaiser was of the opinion that this application was a breath of fresh air, with eighty-five percent of homes being one, two, and three bedrooms, with profits re-invested to deliver a much-needed dementia care home.

 

Wayne Smith felt it was disappointing that not all members managed to attend the site visit, which had proved to be informative. Wayne stated that his concerns had been eased with the suggestion of a 3m high noise bund with tree planting on top. Wayne was of the opinion that work needed to be carried out to the junction of the road in order to reduce speeds, as simply changing the speed limit was very difficult. Wayne commented that a local bus service would be accessible via the new bridge. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Planning and Delivery, commented that there would be enough funding for approximately 7 years of a bus service, after which the development should be built out and occupied which could provide the income for the route.

 

David Cornish applauded the scheme, which made use of a defunct piece of land to provide a high-quality dementia care home. David felt that private purchasers of homes could make their own decision with regards to whether this was the right location for them, whilst the care home was in the hands of expert officers who supported the scheme and felt that it would meet the needs of residents. David sought clarity that the speed limit restriction would be in place on the north side of the bridge. Stefan Fludger, case officer, stated that the extent of the 40MPH limit had not been formalised, however the application rested on reducing the speed limit across the site. There was a condition which required the speed to be reduced, and the extent of where this reduction would occur would be decided upon at that point. Connor Corrigan stated that the 40MPH zone would be pushed back north, most likely past the motorway and this would be finalised at the detailed design stage. Kamran Akhter, Principal Highways Development Management Officer, stated that the new speed limit sign would go on the north side of the bridge under condition 48, whilst a road safety audit would also be required.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh noted that officers had confirmed that the designation of this site within the draft Local Plan Update and the employment needs assessment were material considerations. Andrew queried whether the 62-bed care home in Winnersh located next to the M4 had seen any concerns raised, and whether any needs of future residents and staff at Toutley could be compromised by its location. Matt Pope, Director of Adult Services, stated that no issues had been raised in relation to the Winnersh site, which was a well-used care home. In relation to Toutley, there were no specific issues identified and the design of the care home would mitigate against any such issues. Matt added that it was a key priority to deliver a brand-new specialist dementia care home within the Borough.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether, if approved this evening, actions taken at the reserved matters stage would adequately address issues including noise levels, and queried what would be done to ensure that the junction would be made safe for users from the time that construction began. Stefan Fludger confirmed that condition 13 would require additional details to be submitted with regards to the noise bund if this was deemed to be required. Stefan added that at present the noise bund was part of the indicative scheme. Each phase of development would require the applicant to submit noise protection measures for the living rooms, bedrooms, and dining rooms. Stefan confirmed that condition 48 required speed limit reduction to be in place prior to commencement of the development. Connor Corrigan stated that this was an outline application which had proposed the upper limits of the residential property number. These number could be reduced if additional space was required for noise suppression measures, or if those properties sat inside an area of unacceptable noise. Noise levels would be checked and monitored throughout development.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that whilst a dementia care home was needed, forcing occupants of flats to have their windows to closed due to noise levels would not be ideal. Connor Corrigan stated that mitigation measures would be put in place to reduce noise levels, and there were examples of new development within the Borough at a similar distance to the motorway which had mitigation measures in places including noise bunds.

 

Chris Bowring sought assurances that if in the first instance speed reduction measures were not adequate that they would be fully addressed. Connor Corrigan stated that a road safety audit would be required to be passed. Kamran Akhter stated that this condition was covered by both a road safety audit and a separate traffic regulation order.

 

Gary Cowan stated that the report made reference to the current Local Plan allocating the site for employment use whilst the Draft Local Plan Update had allocated the site for residential development. Gary emphasised that the Draft Local Plan Update had limited weight against the weight afforded to the existing policy. Garry questioned how there was compelling material consideration to change the usage of the site given that the Draft Local Plan Update carried less weight, and the Planning Committee were not privy to the information regarding the assessment of the site for employment use. Gary stated that as Councillors, members could look beyond the limited scope of planning considerations and ensure the health and wellbeing of residents. Gary raised concerns that this application was being recommended for approval against the current core strategy and prior to a decision being taken by the Executive, which he felt could limit their options for other uses of the site. Gary stated that whilst other developments had been approved next to motorways, those properties were for private buyers whilst families of dementia patients would not have such a choice. Gary felt that approval of this application would undermine the Executive and put the health and wellbeing of residents at risk, and felt that the application should be deferred until such time that the Executive had made a decision. Connor Corrigan confirmed that the planning decision being made was entirely separate from any Executive decision. From a planning policy point of view, officers felt that the site could be built out and issues such as noise could be mitigated against. Advice had been given from care providers that similar sites had been developed and operated successfully, and it was now down to the planning Committee to make a judgement on the suitability of this application based on its planning merits.

 

Gary Cowan commented that when looking at a planning application on land which WBC owned, the application should be looked at in its entirety. Gary was of the opinion that approving this application would undermine the Executive’s ability to make a decision on the use of the land. Gary felt that it would do no harm to defer this decision by one to two months to allow the Executive to make a decision. John Kaiser noted that the Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Services and the Director for Adult’s Services had spoken in support of this application, and the Executive could still reject the business case should they wish.

 

Gary Cowan stated that under the Town and Country Planning Act allowed members to have this debate, as this was WBC determining a planning application on its own land. Mary Severin, Borough Solicitor, clarified that the rule that Gary Cowan had read out was in relation to considering information under Part 2 (private) papers, where there was an exemption for the Council’s own applications. Mary added that deferral for non-material planning reasons, for example waiting until the Executive had made a decision on the business case, was not an appropriate reason. Gary Cowan stated that the Planning Committee could make any decision that it wished, whether that was based on a material planning decision or not. It would then be up to the applicant, in this case WBC, to decide whether they wished to appeal the decision and allow the Planning Inspectorate to make a judgement. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated a material planning reason needed to exist now which did not exist when this application was previously deferred in order for a deferral to be legitimate.

 

Gary Cowan stated that he would resign from the Planning Committee after the vote on this item.

 

Wayne Smith felt issues including bollards, lighting, ventilation and the noise bund should return to the Chair and the Vice-Chair for approval.

 

John Kaiser commented that it was the decision of the Council to change speed limits on roads.

 

RESOLVED That application number 211777 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 74 to 92.

Supporting documents: