Agenda item

Demolition of the existing office floorspace and construction of an Extra Care residential development (C2 Class Use) together with ancillary amenity spaces, landscaping, car and cycle parking and associated plant. (As amplified by additional information received 30 January 2023 and amended by plans and information received 27 February 2023, 8 and 16 August 2023).

The committee considered planning application P22/S3033/FUL for the demolition of the existing office floorspace and construction of an Extra Care residential development (C2 Class Use) together with ancillary amenity spaces, landscaping, car and cycle parking and associated plant. (As amplified by additional information received 30 January 2023 and amended by plans and information received 27 February 2023, 8 and 16 August 2023), on land at The Smith Centre, Fairmile, 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 the meeting. 

 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that it was brought to the committee due to the objection of Henley-Town-Council and was called in by a local ward member, Councillor Ken Arlett.

 

The application was for 108 units marketed for residents over 65 and included communal facilities, amenity space, landscaping, and parking provision. Permanent onsite assistance for residents was also highlighted as being provided.

 

The site itself was located to the north of Henley and was in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The planning officer also informed members that it was in the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan area, although unallocated, but that the site was not in the Henley Conservation Area.

 

The planning officer then provided members with a history of the buildings on the site and concluded by highlighting the comments of the conservation officer who had no concerns about their removal.  

 

The planning officer informed the committee that the proposal would remove all the buildings on the site and redevelop it as a single building around the retained trees. The footprint of the proposed building would be approximately the same size as the existing buildings, only adding 600 square metres and extending no further to the boundaries. However, it was noted that due to its singular design rather than multiple blocks, it would maximise space. On the elevations of the building, the proposal had reduced its total height through the application process and although it was indicated as still being taller than the existing buildings, as the landscape officer considered that the additional height would not harm the special character or appearance of the AONB due to the buildings green roofs, its screening by surrounding trees, the planning officer considered it acceptable.

 

The rest of the site was retained for formal and informal amenity space, including retained grass and woodland, and the planning officer confirmed that the amount of space provided was policy compliant. The vast majority of trees were also to be retained, with only a small number of poorer quality trees to be removed. She also noted that 27 additional mature trees would be planted as part of the landscaping scheme.

 

The planning officer gave significant weight to the loss of 40 per cent of the calcareous grassland on the site, a Priority Habitat which formed as a result of spoil from the development on the site in the 1990s. However, although no like-for-like replacement of the grasslands was possible, the planning officer believed that benefits of using the site for older person housing outweighed this loss.

 

Overall, the planning officer considered that need for older persons’ housing in the district outweighed the loss of Priority Habitat and that the development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, she considered the application acceptable and recommend that it be approved.

 

 

Jodie Rhymes spoke on behalf of Henley-on-Thames Town Council, objecting to the application. 

 

Julian Brookes spoke objecting to the application. 

 

Mark Curry, the applicant, supported by Holly Farrow, Ollie Smith, James Ewen, Andy Twyford, Steve Billington, and Andrew Poynter spoke in support of the application. 

 

Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

 

 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application.

 

On a question about the site not being allocated in neighbourhood plan, the planning officer clarified to members that this did not preclude the proposed development as neighbourhood plans set out local aspirations but do not stop other application sites from being considered. She also noted that the site was in accordance with the Local Plan, specifically on policies on older persons’ housing, which were more permissive for allowing sites which are not allocated to come forward.

 

The committee inquired into the lack of affordable housing provided on the site. In response, the planning officer informed members that the Local Plan only required affordable housing provision if it was viable in the scheme, and as an independent viability assessor agreed that the scheme was not viable if it allocated affordable housing, no affordable housing units had been put forward. For this reason, the planning officer considered the application acceptable without the provision of affordable housing. She also emphasised that questions on the viability of the scheme in general were not material planning considerations but that as the scheme was a luxury one that was well designed, she understood how it would add cost to develop.

 

The committee then discussed the need for older persons’ housing, specifically in comparison to the need for affordable housing, and if one should take priority over the other. The development manager clarified that, although there was no specific data about the need for a luxury older persons housing, the need for that type of housing generally had been tested at appeal and inspectors had given significant weight to it due to the need to cater for the ageing population.

 

Members inquired into the objection from the Chilterns Conservation Board but were satisfied with the response from the planning officer that the application had met the National Planning Policy Framework’s test for major developments in AONBs due to its exceptional circumstances being a redevelopment of a brownfield site, providing housing, and that housing was allocated for older people. The committee also considered the planning balance between the ecological harm brought about by the loss of the calcareous grassland and its lack of like-for-like offsetting and the other benefits of the development. 

 

Members then asked for details around the objection from the Highways Authority and the planning officer confirmed that they maintained a holding objection over the location of the cycle storage. However, she believed that this could be dealt with by onsite management and as such, was not a significant enough reason to refuse the application.

 

The committee then discussed the Section 106 legal agreement and were satisfied with the affordable housing uplift clause or financial payment in lieu as well as the other financial contributions. They also noted that the applicant had advised they would be liable for £5m of Community Infrastructure Levy moneys if the application was approved.

 

In addition, on the potential visual impact of the development on the approach to Henley, officers confirmed that the proposal would be more visible than the existing buildings but that the additional impact would be minimal as they were well designed and screened by surrounding trees.

 

The committee weighed up the balance of need against the adverse impact on AONB. As some members believed that the application did not enhance or conserve the AONB, and that there were not sufficient exceptional circumstances to permit the major development, they believed that the application should be refused.

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was not carried on being put to the vote. 

 

Overall, as the committee gave weight to the proposed site being a redevelopment of a brownfield site and that the design of the proposed building was an improvement on the existing ones. In addition, they highlighted that it would also contribute to the need for older persons’ housing in the district. For these reasons, they agreed that the application should be approved, subject to conditions.

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chair, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote.  

 

 

RESOLVED: to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee, to grant planning application P22/S3033/FUL, subject to the following:

 

A)       The prior completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the financial contributions and other obligations as outlined in the report, and

 

B)       The following conditions:

 

1. Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission

2. Approved plans

3. Demolish existing buildings (all)

4. Tree Protection (Detailed)

5. Construction Traffic Management (details required)

6. Construction Environmental Management Plan

7. Detailed Surface Water Drainage scheme

8. Geo-environmental risk assessment

9. Foul water details

10. Contaminated Land - Linked Conditions (1)

11. Biodiversity Offsetting

12. Schedule of Materials

13. Sample panels of facing brickwork

14. Glass coating for external glazing

15. Landscape Management Plan

16. Landscaping (including hardsurfacing and boundary treatment)

17. Integrated Biodiversity Enhancements

18. Contaminated Land - Linked Conditions (2)

19. Green Travel Plan

20. Cycle Parking as approved plans

21. Electric Vehicle Charging Points (details required)

22. Unsuspected Contaminated Land Condition

23. Energy Statement Compliance and Verification Report

24. Tree pits design

25. Sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) compliance report

26. External Lighting – Basic

27. No change in levels

28. Gates/carriageway