Agenda item

The application was for the erection of 4 no. blocks part two storey /part two storey with accommodation in the roof, with balconies and roof gardens, to provide 21 no. two/three bedroom units and 20 no. two storey units of extra care residential accommodation along with car, cycle and buggy parking, access and landscaping including footpaths links.

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘The applicant has provided further evidence concerning the future occupiers indicating that the average occupier of extra care accommodation is 77 years old and that people in their 70’s are unlikely to be able to walk to the SPA due to the distance in-between.

The applicant has also considered that the landscape analysis has been provided for the applicant by a qualified landscape architect and that the scheme has not been assessed by a qualitied landscape officer and the development can be provided within the site and is unlikely to give rise to unacceptable landscape or visual effects which cannot be mitigated.  

The applicant has provided a sequential assessment to indicate that there are no other available sites for this development.

The applicant has also referred to an RTPI report on dementia care which identifies that good quality housing and well-planned, enabling local environments can have a substantial impact on the quality of life of someone living with dementia, and that town planning has a role to play if health and social policies are to succeed.

The applicant has requested a deferral for this application to allow more time to consider the impact of the proposal on the SPA.  However, Natural England considers that there is no need to extend the timeframe to determine this application because they do not consider that an agreement on this issue is possible. 

The Surrey Wildlife Trust has raised concerns about the proposal on SPA grounds and that there is insufficient information to be able to confirm the ecological impact of the development.  

Four further objections have been received raising the following additional concerns:

·        Behaviour of builders on site [Officer comment: This is not a material planning consideration for the current proposal]

·        Noise from generator on site [Officer comment: This relates to the approved development]

·        Security threat for military families [Officer comment: This would not be a reason to refuse the current proposal]

ADDITIONAL REASON FOR REFUSAL

3.  It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on protected species likely to be present on the site failing to comply with Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.’

There was some concern regarding the visibility of the development from the road, development in SPA and the felling of many trees.

It was noted that the borough was required to have 255 private extra care units by 2018. Members were advised that the units were designed to give ‘extra care’ residents independent living and the choice to live in larger homes so family members could stay. In addition residents would not be permitted to have any pets.

Resolved that applications 16/0779 be refused as amended for the reasons as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that had been contacted by residents and the developer.

Note 2

It was noted for the record that Councillor Richard Brooks declared that he had attended an exhibition by the developer and left the room during the consideration of the application.

Note 3

As this application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Jenny Garner spoke in objection to the application and Guy Wakefield, the agent and Rob Andrews (the applicant) spoke in support.

Note 4

The recommendation to refuse the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Conrad Sturt and seconded by Councillor David Mansfield.

Note 5

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application as amended:

Councillors Nick Chambers, Vivienne Chapman, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, Max Nelson, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Adrian Page, Ian Sams, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder and Victoria Wheeler.