Agenda item

1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/00037/FULMAJ in respect of the erection of a Primary Care Centre with associated works.
2. The Planning Officer, Debra Inston, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.
3. The Chairman asked the Highways Officer, Paul Goddard, if he had any observations on the application.
4. The Highways Officer highlighted that the location had both advantages and disadvantages when compared to the existing facility on St Johns Road. On traffic volume and location of the site, he indicated that there was not expected to be an overall greater volume of traffic generated by the proposed facility, as it was a replacement for the existing one. In addition, he noted that the site was more central to its catchment area and that it had good potential for sustainable travel opportunities, such as cycle routes and bus services. For these reasons, he considered the location to be acceptable.
5. For the access to the site, the Highways Officer noted that the road to the north was a private and unadopted road owned by Newbury College. Although the only initial access would come off the A339, he clarified to Members that this was temporary as a new additional access would also be delivered through the Sandleford Park West site.
6. The Highways Officer confirmed that the small access serving the staff parking area and the access serving the larger car park were a suitable distance from the accesses to the school opposite. Also, as that part of Highwood Copse Way had road markings to keep vehicles clear, he believed that visibility should be clear and therefore that the access was suitable. The sightlines were subject to amended drawings and secured by conditions.
7. On parking numbers, the Highways Officer indicated that they expected 24 staff present at a given time as well as 48 patients. As the total spaces provided was 72, this number was considered sufficient. 
8. It was agreed that further detail would be required on sight lines and that further work was needed on pedestrian routes to the site and the Highways Officer confirmed that a dropped kerb should be provided across road adjacent to the site to link the site to the existing footways on the road. These matters could be secured through conditions.
9. For the reasons presented, the Highways Officer recommended that the application be approved.
10. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Tom Sadler, the Agent, Dr Anne Maloney, the applicant, and Councillor David Marsh, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

11. Mr Tom Sadler and Dr Anne Maloney addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed in the recording: Western Area Planning Committee – Wednesday 22 January 2025.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

12. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The expected population figure of 20,000 that the facility would serve was just for Eastfields and that there was no plan to merge with Falkland’s surgery.

·       Accessibility design was considered during the formulation of the application, and they had incorporated footpaths wherever possible on site, although their budget precluded them from going further beyond that. In addition, although some patients would need to go up the hill if traveling from nearer to the centre of Newbury, they indicated that the new Sandleford residents would need to make the same walk up the hill if they remained at their existing facility.

·       The surgery had a lack of parking on their existing site and needed to rely on buses, volunteer groups who dropped off patients, as well as home visits by their staff – something that was not common practice. They also noted feedback on the proposal which indicated that their patients would like the option to get dropped off at the door of the practice.

·       In terms of the capacity of the site, Members were assured that it did have the ability to match ten years population growth and take on patients from the recently approved developments in the area. There was also room for the facility to expand if there became a future need.

·       Once planning permission was granted, they expected that they could deliver the facility within two years – one year to secure the funding and the other for construction. Although they were NHS employees, their funding model required them to attain full planning permission before the funding would be unlocked.

·       The facility had no projections about future staff numbers and would recruit additional staff as and when needed. However, they believed the 28 clinical rooms (up from 13 in the current facility) would be sufficient.

·       They had worked on the application for over a year, only receiving queries about drainage in December 2024. Consultants were recruited and prepared a comprehensive drainage strategy which could form part of the conditions on the approval of the application. Due to their funding requirements, they petitioned the Council to approve the application in full and not accept the proposal in the update report for a three-month period for discussing drainage issues.

Ward Member Representation

13. Councillor David Marsh addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed in the recording: Western Area Planning Committee – Wednesday 22 January 2025

Member Questions to the Ward Member

14. Members asked questions of clarification of Councillor David Marsh and were given the following responses:

·       Although welcoming the application, he was not sure if either the proposed site or the Falklands surgery would be able to cope with increasing demand and an ageing population.

·       He believed that not enough consideration on demand for health services was given when the large development at Sandleford Park was considered as this would likely result in the need for an additional facility in Newbury.  

Member Questions to Officers

15. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       As the application was submitted before the Biodiversity Net Gain regulations came into force, there was no figure attached to the application. However, the Council’s Ecologist had reviewed the application and had no objections.

·       On parking spaces, as it was not expected that all of the staff would travel in cars, the 72 spaces provided were expected to accommodate the predicted numbers, plus some additional cars if required. In addition, staff could use the patient car park as an overflow if needed. The Highways Officer also confirmed that he believed that the car park could accommodate an increase in staff numbers to a certain level. Although the Highways Officer had some minor concerns about the capacity of the car park, he highlighted to the Committee that this would not be a sufficient reason alone for him to recommend that the application be refused. In addition, the size of the proposed parking spaces themselves met the national standard and the route into the car park was also considered to be sufficient.

·       In terms of traffic volumes, the AM peak was indicated as being 55 arrivals and 25 departures, which was then mirrored during the PM peak.

·       The staff parking access on Highwood Copse Way was only for the smaller staff parking area and was halfway between the entrance and exit of the school, with the main parking access to the site being closer to the A339 and away from the school’s entrance.

·       Installing a right turn onto the A339 from Highwood Copse Way was not considered as part of the application and it was also noted that this may have negative effects on the capacity of the A339 as a whole.

·       There were several reasons why the Council had requested that access be placed on Highwood Copse Way and not towards Monks Lane (the private road running north). There would be significant traffic coming down from Monks Lane, including from the College and upcoming Aldi store, and so Highways did not want any further traffic to contribute to this. The route to Monks Lane was also a private unadopted road under the control of Newbury College. In addition, as Sandleford Park would soon be developed, this site could then also be travelled to from the west. For these reasons, and as they wanted to spread traffic across the whole area rather than allowing it to be concentrated in a specific place, they requested the access as proposed. Members noted that the sightlines provided met the standards for a 30 mile per hour road.

·       If the applicant wanted to install a different access this would need to come forward as a new application, and not a Section 73 application, as it would likely involve moving the red site line.

·       Construction traffic for this development, as well as others in the area like for the Aldi Store, would be controlled and their impact mitigated through the conditioning of construction method statements. The Highways Officer would then ensure that this statement was suitable, and that construction traffic did not cause any issues, with special consideration given to the school to the south of the site.

·       The foul drainage plans were assessed by Thames Water who suggested conditions be applied to the approval of the application, and Officers confirmed that the proposed conditions were acceptable.

·        The Drainage and Flood Risk Officer, Paul Bacchus, highlighted that he had no serious concern with drainage on the site, but was concerned about the surface water from the site linking into the Council’s network. For this reason, the update report for the item recommended that the application be delegated to the Development Manager for approval subject to conditions and the satisfactory resolution of these drainage issues within three months. If there was no resolution within this period, it was recommended that the application be refused on those grounds. 

·       The impact of the lime tree on the site had been reviewed by the Tree Officer and they confirmed that they had no objection subject to conditions.

·       It was not possible to confirm at the meeting whether volunteer bus services would be permitted to use the existing bus stop near Newbury College for any potential services in assisting patients to the site.

·       As the road to the west of the school on Highwood Copse Way was widened to allow for cars to park there for school drop off, it was confirmed that this on street parking could also be used by the surgery’s patients during the day.

Debate

16. Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by indicating that he had concerns about access and drainage. However, as this could be dealt with through conditions, he was satisfied to approve the application.
17. Councillor Nigel Foot agreed with Councillor Vickers and highlighted that there was a real need for primary care services, and that given this urgent need, the Committee should approve the application. He also indicated that he would like to see a voluntary bus service going from the area around St John’s Church to the new site of the surgery whilst patients got used to the change.
18. Councillor Adrian Abbs also noted the increasing need for these services and so believed the Committee had no choice but to approve the application. As the closure of the current site would disadvantage some who lived closer to the existing facility, he indicated that he would like to see an additional surgery rather than just a replacement. On access, he highlighted that the site would benefit from a new access application to help alleviate the problems that had been identified. In order to ensure proper vision splays and help access onto the site, he proposed a variation of condition 19 to ensure that the hedges facing the road were conditioned to be maintained in perpetuity.
19. Councillor Abbs proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report, with the variation of Condition 19 to replace, ‘at all times’, with, ‘in perpetuity’. This was seconded by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj.
20. Councillor Amirtharaj indicated his support for the application and highlighted that the parking proposed on the site looked significantly improved when compared to the parking provision in the other surgeries across Newbury.
21. Councillor Foot responded to a point made about requesting an additional surgery. Although this was desirable, he indicated that this was not a simple solution that was easily accomplished.
22. Councillor Denise Gaines indicated that with vehicles parking on the road, this would slow the through traffic and contribute to vehicular and pedestrian safety. In addition, she highlighted that not all staff would be in the office at any one point in time and that the Community Infrastructure Levies (CIL) gained through this development, and others in the area, could be used to fund additional pedestrian infrastructure like footways and crossings.
23. Councillor Abbs inquired into adding a condition requiring Highwood Copse Way to be a 20 mile per hour road and noted that this was not something achievable through conditions, although it was something already planned for the Sandleford development.
24. Councillor Clive Hooker highlighted the drainage concerns with the proposal but was satisfied with the recommendation that these issues would be resolved before permission was granted with the additional three-month period.
25. Councillor Vickers noted the foul drainage position of the application and was assured that Thames Water was required to accept the connection and that they would produce their own timeline as to when the works would be done. He was also satisfied with the condition that the facility could only commence its use as a surgery until after this service was connected.
26. Councillor Howard Woollaston noted the limited number of toilets on site so did not believe foul drainage to be a serious issue for the application.
27. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Abbs, seconded by Councillor Amirtharaj, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory resolution of surface water drainage matters, including any necessary Section 106 Agreement or associated conditions, within 3 months (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), and conditions 1-4, 6-10 and 12-21 listed in section 8 of the agenda report (with the addition of the minor amendment to condition 19 to replace ‘at all times’ with ‘in perpetuity’) and condition 11 listed in the update report (or minor and inconsequential amendments to those conditions authorised by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee).

OR, if the drainage matters are not adequately addressed, including completion of a Section 106 Agreement (if required), to delegate to the Development Manager to refuse planning permission.