Agenda item

Councillors Anthony Stansfeld, Hilary Cole, Jeff Beck and Paul Bryant stated that as members of Western Area Planning Committee, they had previously considered item 4[2] on this agenda.  Any comments that had been made at previous meetings, were made on the basis of information that was available at that time. For the avoidance of doubt, they confirmed that they would be considering all the evidence presented in relation to this matter, and therefore they would be considering this application afresh. In accordance with the Council's Constitution they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.  

Councillor Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council but confirmed that he had taken no part in the discussion or decision of this item when it had been considered at the Town Council Planning meeting. He had also been lobbied on this item. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application No. 11/00490/FUL in respect of the erection of a 24 hour nursing care home for 24 patients.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor David Allen, Town Council representative, Mr. Graham Smith, objector, and Mr. Peter Frampton and Mr. John Horseman, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

In introducing the report, Mr. Michael Butler, the Council’s Principal Planning Officer, stated that this application had been considered at the Western Area Planning Committee on 25^th May 2011. This application site was outside the settlement boundary of the town which corresponded to Monks Lane and the site had Greenfield status. Officers continued to recommend a balanced approval of the application given the exceptional health community need for such a facility. If the application were to be approved then three further conditions would be required which related to landscaping, means of enclosure and refuse storage together with an informative that external facing materials to be approved in conjunction with the Ward Members.

If the Committee were minded to approve the application it would first need to be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit for 21 days to determine if the Secretary of State wished to “call in” the application for his decision. If the application was not called in then it would require the completion of a s106 planning obligation prior to an approval decision being issued.

Councillor Jeff Beck asked for confirmation that fire suppression sprinklers would be included within the development. The Planning Officer responded that no written confirmation had been received from the applicant but that was a question which could be put to them during the course of the meeting. 

Councillor David Allen in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Councillor David Allen confirmed that he was a Town Councillor for the Victoria Ward of Newbury and was also a District Councillor who sat on the Western Area Planning Committee and was a substitute for the District Planning Committee. He had not been in attendance at the Western Area Committee meeting in May 2011 due to illness;

·                    The Town Council were of the opinion that the need for the facility outweighed the concerns and they had voted to support the application on 18^th May 2011;

·                    The applicants had been searching for a long time for a suitable site and this location was close to the town, on a bus route and near to the local shops.

Mr. Graham Smith in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr. Smith confirmed that he was a local resident who lived in Monks Lane and that he was also speaking on behalf of a number of his neighbours;

·                    Residents were concerned that Monks Lane was the last road out of Newbury before getting into the open countryside and that should be preserved;

·                    The proposed use of the facility was not a concern to local residents;

·                    Residents had attended a recent meeting where it had been stated that patients were keen to integrate into the local community. However, Mr. Smith was not sure why these patients were being brought to the Newbury area when they had previously resided near Reading. There would be no benefit to the local community;

·                    Mr. Smith raised concerns about the level of traffic along Monks Lane which linked the Andover Road to the local retail park. This would be exacerbated with the use of the road for staff and visitors to the facility;

·                    The approval of this application could set a precedent.

Councillor Keith Woodhams referred Mr. Smith to page 63 of the agenda, paragraph 6.2.2 which stated that patients would transfer from a ward which was closing down in Prospect Park, Reading, to be nearer to their local family networks in the Newbury area.

Mr. Peter Frampton and Mr. John Horseman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr. Frampton did not believe that this proposal would set a precedent. There were exceptional planning merits which justified a deviation from Council policies;

·                    All the proposed patients moving to this facility would have an association with the Newbury area and this coincided with a recent Government initiative to move mental health patients nearer to their families wherever possible;

·                    There was a clear need for such a facility in this area;

·                    The site did have Greenfield status but was not currently in use and the sale of the land would provide funding for an all-weather pitch on the nearby Rugby Football Club;

·                    The Council’s proposed Core Strategy proposed a large urban development at nearby Sandleford Park;

·                    The applicant confirmed that consideration had been given to a number of alternative sites but none had been deemed suitable by the applicants;

·                    Mr. Frampton referred to a recent letter from Mr. Carter in which he felt a number of the points were ill conceived. During the consultation process not all points could be resolved to the satisfaction of the correspondent;

·                    Mr. Frampton referred to the point made by Mr. Smith in respect of an increase in traffic. Patients would not be car owners and following a Transport Assessment of the proposed development it was confirmed that it would amount to only two additional trips per day and therefore the impact would be minimal;

·                    A parking area would be provided on the site with 2 disabled spaces and 12 normal parking spaces for staff and visitors.

Councillor Paul Bryant asked the applicant whether this development would satisfy the total need for Newbury. The applicant confirmed that the proposed facility would accommodate those patients who had been transferred out of the area previously and was sufficient to cover current demand.

Councillor Jeff Beck queried whether the applicant would consider installing fire suppression sprinklers and the applicant confirmed that they would install sprinklers.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld asked for assurance that the facility could be filled with those people who had a close association with the Newbury area and that the patients would pose no threat to the local community. The applicant confirmed that all patients would have a close association with the area and would not pose a threat to the local community.

In considering the above application Councillor Pamela Bale stated her support for such a facility. However, given the use of a Greenfield site she asked how it could be conditioned that the building could only be used for an exceptional use, such as a mental health facility, rather than for residential development. Gary Rayner confirmed that the whole unit would fall within Class C2 of the 2004 Use Classes Order which covered a range of uses. However, a condition could be included to restrict use to the proposed use only if Members so wished.

Councillor Hilary Cole stated that she was concerned about the proposed new development at Sandleford Park. If that came to fruition then there would be a need to extend the doctor’s surgery in Monks Lane. Although this should not be taken into account it was a concern. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was land to the south of the surgery for which an planning application could be submitted at some stage to extend the surgery if necessary.

Councillor Paul Bryant felt that this was a difficult application which also went against Council policy. It was a Greenfield site and therefore exceptional circumstances needed to be in place in order to approve the application. Bryan Lyttle referred Members to the update sheet which considered the planning policy issue and Officers had given their response. It was considered that whilst the development proposal was contrary to the West Berkshire Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, RSS Policy S2 and Policy CS4 of the Submitted West Berkshire Core Strategy together with the identified critical infrastructure needs in West Berkshire were sufficient material considerations for no Planning Policy Objection to this application. The Berkshire West Primary Care Trust also stated there was a need for such a facility and this was an additional reason to support the application.

Michael Butler confirmed that the recommendation was one of balanced approval and it was up to Members of the Committee to make a decision. Officers had discussed the application at length and were confident that there was a justification for the need to override policy.

Councillor Keith Woodhams agreed that each application had to be considered on its own merits. However, there was already a doctor’s surgery in the adjacent area and therefore a precedent had already been set.

Councillor Graham Pask felt that the Council’s policies were sufficiently flexible enough to permit such an application on its own merits. Officers advised that the provision of a fire suppression system could not be conditioned but that the Committee had been given an assurance by the applicant that they would be provided.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the first completion of a s106 planning obligation within three months of the date of that Committee, i.e. 8^th September 2011.

If for any reason the obligation is not completed by the above date, the application be refused, where considered expedient, for the following reason:-

“Notwithstanding the Council’s acceptance in principle of the application, the applicant has failed to enter into a s106 obligation which would mitigate the impact the increased traffic generation will have upon the Council’s roads and health infrastructure. Accordingly the application is contrary to policy OVS3 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 [Saved Policies 2007], the advice in Circular 5/2005 and the Council’s SPG4/04 as updated plus the CIL Regulations dated 2010. The application is thus unacceptable.”  

Conditions:

1.         The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against  Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006  [Saved Policies 2007] should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2.         Prior to the commencement of development, samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 [Saved Policies 2007].

3.         Prior to the commencement of development details of the external lighting to be used in the areas around the proposed building(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter no building shall be occupied until the external lighting has been installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority wish to be satisfied that these details are satisfactory, having regard to the setting of the development in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006[Saved Policies 2007].

4.         All plant, machinery and equipment (including fans, ducting and external openings) to be used by reason of the granting of this permission shall be so installed, maintained and operated to prevent the transmission of noise and vibration into any premises either attached to, or in the vicinity of the premises to which the application refers. 

Reason: To ensure that unacceptable levels of noise and vibration do not emanate from the building and to protect local residents from unreasonable disturbance caused by the use permitted in accord with policy OVS6 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 [Saved Policies 2007].

5.         No development shall take place until details of the air ventilation systems have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  No part of the development shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of residential accommodation in the vicinity. In accord with policy OVS2 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 199 to 2006 [Saved Policies 2007]. 

6.         Before development commences the applicants shall submit to the Local planning authority a scheme of works, or other steps as may be necessary to minimise the effects of dust from the development. Development shall not commence until written approval has been given by the Local planning Authority to any such scheme of works.

Reason: In the interests of amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accord with policy OVS2 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 [Saved Policies 2007].

7.         The hours of work for all contractors for the duration of the site development shall unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing be limited to:

7.30 am to 6.00 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays 8.30 am to 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accord with policy OVS6 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 [Saved Policies 2007].

8.         Prior to the development being brought into use the vehicle parking spaces shall be surfaced, marked out and properly provided in accordance with the approved drawing(s).   The spaces shall, thereafter, be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.   Vehicles shall only be parked within those marked spaces.

Reason: To regularise the use of the available parking area and to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking, which would be a danger to road users in accordance with Policies TRANS 1 and OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 [Saved Policies 2007].

9.         Prior to the commencement of development, details of the cycle parking and storage space to be provided within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the cycle parking and storage space shall be provided prior to the development being brought into use in accordance with the approved details and retained for this purpose at all times.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate and safe cycle storage space within the site in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 [Saved Policies 2007].

10.       Prior to the commencement of development, details to show a temporary parking area and turning space to be provided and maintained concurrently with the development of the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved parking area and turning space shall at the commencement of development be provided and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details until the development has been completed and shall during that time be used for parking by all employees, contractors and operatives or other visitors during all periods that they are working at or visiting the site.

Reason: In accordance with Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 [Saved Policies 2007] to ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities during the construction period, in order to minimise the incidence of off site parking in the locality which could cause danger to other road users or long term inconvenience to local residents especially on Monks Lane.

11.       The scheme must be built out in accord with the amended plans received on 5th May 2011 - site plan - amended red line.

Reason: In order to clarify the planning permission.

12.             Landscaping.

13.             Means of enclosure.

14.             Refuse storage.

15.             Restriction on Use Class.

16.             Finished floor levels.

Informative:

1.                  External facing materials to be approved in conjunction with Ward Members.

Councillor Paul Bryant abstained from voting on this application.