Agenda item

Erection of a block of 32no. sheltered apartments for the elderly with detached binstore/cycle/electric buggy store; modification of existing access (to No.50) and closure of existing access to No.48 following the demolition of existing buildings.

Erection of a block of 32no. sheltered apartments for the elderly with detached binstore/cycle/electric buggy store; modification of existing access (to No.50) and closure of existing access to No.48 following the demolition of existing buildings.

A site visit had been held on Saturday 10 October 2015 which had been attended by Councillors Brossard, Dudley, Mrs Ingham, Mrs Mattick, Mrs McKenzie, Mrs McKenzie-Boyle, Thompson and Turrell.

The Committee noted:

• The supplementary report of the Head of Planning tabled at the meeting.
• Crowthorne Parish Council had considered the application as amended and had recommended refusal on the following grounds:

1. Insufficient parking provision

2. Overbearing and out of character with neighbouring properties

3. Light pollution to 52 Dukes Ride

·         Wokingham Without Parish Council had raised concerns including:

- Harmful impact on character of area

- Impact on living conditions of nearby residents

- Inadequate car parking

·         76 objections to the development had been received from separate addresses.  The main reasons for objection are summarised below (each having been addressed in the officer report):

- Inappropriate development on greenfield land that has not been allocated.

- Adverse impact upon surrounding residential amenity

- Lack of parking, traffic and highway safety

- Adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area through inappropriate scale, massing, design, density and loss of character buildings.

- Impact upon local wildlife and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA

- Impact upon Trees.

- Is there a need for this type of accommodation?

- Waste and Odour

- Impact upon GP facilities in the area

- No public consultation from the developer.

The criteria for public speaking had been met in respect of this application and the Committee was addressed by the registered speaker Parish Councillor Bruce McKenzie-Boyle, who represented the objections of local residents to the proposed development, and Peter Tanner, representing the agent on behalf of the applicant.

A motion to authorise the Head of Planning to approve the application subject to conditions (and following the completion of a planning obligation) as recommended in the Officer report was put to the vote and was lost.  An alternative motion to refuse planning permission was put to the vote and was carried.

RESOLVED that planning application 14/01073/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01. The development as proposed would provide inadequate on-site parking provision to serve the 32 sheltered apartments. This is likely to lead to increased on-street parking on surrounding roads to the detriment of highway safety. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan Policy M9 and Core Strategy Development Plan Document Policy CS23 and the NPPF.

02. In the absence of a planning obligation to secure contributions towards affordable housing in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Policy H8 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and to the Planning Obligations SPD (2015)

03. The occupants of the development would put extra pressure on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and the applicants have not satisfactorily mitigated the development to comply with the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2012. In the absence of a section 106 planning obligation to secure suitable mitigation measures, the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan, Policy EN3 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2012.

04. The applicant has failed to provide an adequate and safe parking layout for the unrestricted C3 Residential Use and this could lead to vehicles parking on the highways to the detriment of road safety. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy M9 and Core Strategy Policy CS23 and the NPPF.

05. The applicant has failed to secure contributions in order to implement Traffic Regulation Orders needed to prevent on-street parking in inappropriate locations that would lead to highway safety implications. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy M9 and Core Strategy Policy CS23 and the NPPF.

Cllr Mrs McKenzie-Boyle, having declared an Affected Interest in this item, withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of it.