Agenda item

The application was for the erection of a two-storey, 66 bedroom care home for older people with associated parking and landscaping.

This application had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee as the floor area exceeded 1000 square metres.

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

"Secretary of State – As the application would be a departure from the development plan, if Members resolve to grant permission then the application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State prior to any decision being issued.

Doctor’s surgery – The applicant has been asked for information to clarify why a doctor’s surgery was not part of this permission. The applicant has stated:

It is appreciated that a doctors surgery formed part of the original planning permission relating to this site. It is also appreciated that this proposal followed on a short time after the doctors surgery central to Windlesham was closed. This decision was made over 10 years ago on the basis that it was believed inefficient and ineffective to retain the surgery in Windlesham.

The preference then was to centralise the provision, funding and delivery of the GP Service to residents of Windlesham at the Lightwater Surgery, only a short distance away (less than 2 miles from the application site and only little over a mile from the centre of Windlesham).  It is understood and it remains the case and that there remains insufficient funding available or deemed necessity, to make the provision of a doctors surgery on the site of Orchard Cottage, a viable prospect.

It is notable here that NHS Frimley Clinical Commissioning Group have not responded to the current application, despite having been consulted. 

To clarify further, there is no requirement for the applicant to provide the doctor’s surgery as part of the extant permission.  This was not requested by Members at Committee when the previous application (15/0272) was granted.

The CCG have been chased again for a response but have no response has been received.

CO2 savings – The applicant has provided further information as follows:

I have sought advice on quantification of the CO2 saving likely to arise from this particular array of solar panels. The advice I have received is that these will result in a saving of some 20.0 kg/m²/yr equivalent to an overall quantity of c.64 tonnes.CO2/annum. If we include the ground source system, designed to provide all of the homes heating and cooling requirements, the saving across both systems should result in a saving of c. 40.0 kg/m²/yr, amounting to a conservatively estimated saving, of in excess of 100 tonnes/CO2/annum. 

 It is noted that the extant scheme did not propose solar panels or the ground source heating system.

Nursing care – The applicant has clarified that nursing care at the home is not currently proposed, however more specialised residential/dementia care will be offered. There is flexibility to provide nursing care in the future if required.

Residents’ cars – The applicant has advised that while is it not their policy to not permit residents to have their own cars, due to their care needs (they will have to meet proposed Condition 17)  it is very unlikely that they would still be physically able to drive. The applicant is comfortable therefore advising that none of the residents will have their own cars at the site.

Double bedroom accommodation – To clarify, four rooms proposed are double bedrooms, two on the ground floor and two on first floor.

Comparison of other sites and parking spaces – The applicant has advised that the following homes are all 66-bed care homes run by the same operator (LNT Care Developments) with fewer parking spaces:

-          Canterbury House, Faversham – 22 spaces (Officers note this is 16 min walk from a railway station and 4 min walk from an hourly bus service)

-          Harrier Grange, Andover – 18 spaces (Officers note this is a 31 min walk from a railway station and 8 min walk from a regular bus service)

-          Briggs Lodge, Devizes – 22 spaces (Officers note a number of buses stop immediately outside the care home but there is no railway station nearby)

For comparison, this site is a 25-minute walk from a bus service with less than hourly frequency Monday to Friday, and a 46-minute walk from the nearest station (Longcross).

The applicant has further advised that:

-          It is of paramount importance to the care home operator that the parking provision is suitable, as not to provide sufficient parking would result in serious implications for the operation of the proposed care home and would mean it was not as attractive to future residents

-          The adopted parking standards are a maximum and here they have sought to provide the maximum

-          As a comparison - Lakeview Care Home in Lightwater has 58 beds and offers 19 parking spaces; Kingsley Court in Bisley is a 60-bed care home that only offered 19 spaces until recently extended

-          The same ratio here would mean 29 spaces for Lakeview and 30 for Kingsbury Court, neither of which will be achieved even with the proposed extensions of provision.

County Highways further response – They have confirmed that the parking standards for care homes take account of staff requirements as well as that of visitors and residents.  They state that even with 24 staff all driving to work which is a worst-case scenario, 9 spaces would be left for visitors which they consider is sufficient as visitor numbers will be spread throughout the day."

As the application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mr Alistair Wood spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.

The Committee raised concerns in respect of the potential harm created by the construction of the proposal in relation highway safety and inconvenience to other highways users. As a result, it was agreed to add an additional requirement to condition 7 of the officer’s recommendation in order to require signage as part of the specified vehicle routing.

The officer recommendation to grant the application was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins, seconded by Councillor Graham Tapper, and put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that

                     I.        application 21/0936 be granted subject to the conditions in the Officer Report, as amended; and

                    II.        the application be referred to the Secretary of State due to a departure from the Development Plan.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Councillor Pat Tedder knew the owner of the site, but they were not the applicant.

Note 2

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 officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors Edward Hawkins, Charlotte Morley, Liz Noble, Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, Morgan Rise and Graham Tapper.

Voting against the officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors Stuart Black, Pat Tedder and Valerie White.

Note 3

In line with Part 4, Section D, Paragraph 18 of the Constitution, Councillors Mark Gordon, David Lewis and Victoria Wheeler did not vote on the application as they were not present for the whole consideration of the application.