Agenda item

Demolition of the existing building and the erection of an 80 bed care home (C2 use) with parking, landscaping, retention of existing access to Newtown Road and creation of a new access from Mill Lane.

David Nimmo-Smith declared an interest in this item, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item.

 

Joan Bland and Lorraine Hillier, two of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting on this item.  

 

The committee considered application P15/S3385/FUL for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of an 80 bed care home (C2 use) with parking, landscaping, retention of existing access to Newtown Road and creation of a new access from Mill Lane at The Workshop, Newtown Road, Henley-on-Thames.

 

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

 

Officer update: additional information was provided on the usage of the Mill Lane car park and the demand for casual swimming and swimming lessons at Henley Leisure Centre.

 

Julian Brookes and David Nimmo-Smith, representatives of Henley Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.  The town council’s concerns included:

·         The loss of leisure facilities will have a detrimental effect on Henley residents;

·         The designation of the building as an asset of community value demonstrates its importance to the locality;

·         The site was not designated for residential development in the Neighbourhood Plan; and

·         Staff would need to travel to and from the development by car at all hours so generating additional traffic and impacting on air quality. 

 

Deidre Wells, Michelle Thomas and Mark Binning, local residents, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included:

·         There were already sufficient care homes in the area;

·         The proposal was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan;

·         Concerns about additional traffic, inadequate parking provision, access and pedestrian safety had not been addressed; and

·         There was insufficient swimming pool provision elsewhere and some children’s swimming classes at Henley Leisure Centre were already full.

 

Douglas Bond, the applicant’s agent and Sheila Tunstall, a local resident, spoke in support of the application:

·         A number of new gyms had opened in the area and there was spare capacity;

·         The care home would attract significantly fewer car journeys than the former fitness centre and there had been no objections from the highways authority;

·         The care home would be built to a high standard and would free up accommodation as elderly local residents moved into the home; and

·         The designation of the building as an asset of community value did not place any restrictions on what the owner of the property can do if it remained in their ownership.

 

Stefan Gawrysiak, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included:

·         The site was not designated for residential development in the Neighbourhood Plan;

·         The site is in an area of business use so, if approved, more employment opportunities would need to be provided elsewhere;

·         Mill Lane had insufficient capacity for the additional traffic that would be generated;

·         There was already sufficient care home provision in the area; and

·         Approving the application would result in the loss of a community asset.

 

Lorraine Hillier, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included:

·         The designation of the building as an asset of community value should carry material weight;

·         There was a shortage of alternative swimming provision; and

·         There was an abundance of care home provision and applications for additional accommodation;

 

Joan Bland, one of the local ward members, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included:

·         There was no need for additional residential accommodation for the elderly in the area;

·         The site was not designated for residential development in the Neighbourhood Plan; and

·         The proposal would generate additional traffic.

 

In response to matters raised, the planning officers reported that:

 

·         Although demand varied, swimming lessons at Henley Leisure Centre were operating at 80% capacity and casual swimming was below capacity;

·         Even if another recreational facility were to be opened on the site, there was no guarantee that this would include a swimming pool;

·         The proposal was not contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan as the plan was silent on the use of the site; and

·         The designation of the building as an asset of community value meant that the community would be given the opportunity to purchase the asset if it were put up for sale.

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was declared carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to delegate authority to grant planning permission for application P15/S3385/FUL to the head of planning subject to:

 

i)       The prior completion of a Section 106 agreement with the County Council to secure contributions towards bus services and monitoring as detailed in the report.

 

ii)     The following conditions:

 

1.     Commencement three years - full planning permission.

2.     Approved plans.

3.     Restriction on use - class C2.

4.     Slab and ridge levels to be agreed.

5.     All sample materials to be agreed.

6.     Sample wall panel of materials to be agreed

7.     Landscaping (access/hard standings/fencing/walls) to be agreed.

8.     Tree pits to be agreed.

9.     Vision splay to be agreed.

10.  Car parking details.

11.  Travel plan.

12.  Construction travel management plan to be agreed.

13.  Surface water drainage works to be agreed.

14.  Decontamination works to be verified by the Council.

15.  External lighting to be agreed.

16.  Air quality modelling and mitigation to be agreed.

17.  Protection of trees during development.

18.  Access details.

19.  No surface water drainage to the highway.

20.  Cycle parking details.

21.  Bins storage details.

22.  Noise controls.

23.  Foul drainage works.

24.  Ecology mitigation.

25.  Hours of construction