Agenda item

Erection of a building to provide an 80 bed care home including 20 community beds together with a building to provide health workers accommodation with access from Knowle Lane, associated parking and ancillary works

Recommendation

That permission be REFUSED

Councillor David Beaman was in the Chair for this item.

Proposal

Erection of a building to provide an 80 bed care home including 20 community beds together with a building to provide health workers accommodation with access from Knowle Lane, associated parking and ancillary works

Introduction

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the planning context for making a decision on the application, and then outlined the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues and those matters of a more subjective nature.

The Committee was advised that since the agenda papers had been published there had been 38 additional representations from the public. There were 11 in objecting to the scheme and 27 in support. Cranleigh Parish Council had also reconsidered the amended access and highways layout and now had raised an objection on further grounds. There was also an amendment to the second reason for refusal of which is detailed in the update sheet.

The Committee was advised that the application had come to committee because of the level of public interest both for and against the application. The Head of Planning had, therefore, waivered his delegated authority to refuse the application and brought it to Committee. Members noted that the Council had previously granted planning permission for the site to be developed for medically related purposes, however, this was prior to the National Planning Policy Framework and the adoption of the Council’s new Local Plan Part 1. The proposal was for a significantly greater amount of development, the design and layout of which resulted in a very much more sprawling development that gave the appearance of filling the site significantly when  compared to previous schemes. Officers advised that they felt that the benefits by way of 20 community beds, 60 private nursing beds and affordable health worker accommodation were not sufficient to outweigh the (visual) harm and adverse (landscape) impacts.  It was, therefore, recommended that permission is refused.

Public Speaking

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

Cathy Plank                                      -           Objector

Cllr Rowena Tyler                            -           Parish/Town Council

John Sneddon and Giles Mahoney          -           Supporters]

Councillor Patricia Ellis also spoke on this application as the local Ward Councillor.

Councillor Jerry Hyman also spoke on the application.

Debate

Prior to commencing debate a motion was put forward and seconded to defer consideration of the application as it was felt that there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed. Put to the vote there were 5 in favour of deferral, 14 against and 1 abstention so the motion was not carried.

Councillor Brian Adams opened debate on the application. He agreed with the officer recommendation feeling that the proposal was over development of the site. Councillor Jacqui Keen also was concerned and felt that 20 community beds which might not be gifted to the community in perpetuity was not a huge benefit. Councillor Keven Deanus was concerned about the state of the roads to the site which were already strewn with pot holes and suggested that there were several policies that the proposal conflicted with. Councillor Carole Cockburn also agreed with the officer recommendation for refusal because of the mass and scale of the proposed development.

Councillor Liz Townsend was not convinced that there was a big enough community benefit and there was an absence of wildlife surveys. Councillor Sally Dickson was concerned about the increase in traffic along the road and the impact on the wildlife and trees with such a large building.

Councillor Peter Isherwood disagreed with the officers, citing a recent NHS report which referred to carers living close to homes. Councillor Anna James also disagreed with the officer recommendation and felt that these were much needed beds in the area and was in the right place for it.

Officers advised that the amount of development sought had been justified via independent assessment as the minimum that was financially necessary to deliver the 20 community beds – the key community benefit.  The 60 private nursing beds would also be of benefit to the community.  The health workers accommodation was subsidised and as such was considered to provide affordable accommodation that would be a benefit to the community. Councillors were correct about the community beds only receiving funding for 5years, however, the applicant had confirmed their willingness to enter into a legal agreement to secure community benefits. Despite this, The assessment of all the planning considerations that applied to the proposed development the officers conclusion was to recommend refusal as the scale of the development would result in unacceptable impacts on the countryside and protected views that could not be overcome by the community benefits arising from the scheme.

The Committee moved to the recommendation for refusal and there were 15 for the recommendation for refusal, 1 against and 5 abstentions.

Decision

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    Reason. 

The proposed development by reason of its location within the Countryside beyond the Green Belt would result in the loss of a Greenfield outside of a defined settlement boundary. The proposed development would therefore be in conflict with the Council's Spatial Strategy and the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP2, RE1 and TD1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2018 (Part 1) and retained Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF 2019.

2.    Reason

The Site Lies within an Area of Strategic Visual Importance within which the landscape character is to be conserved and enhanced.  The proposal is inconsistent with this aim and conflicts with national, strategic and local policies set out in Policy C5 of the retained policies of the Waverley Local Plan 2002. 

3.     Reason

In the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure a travel plan such to maximise the use of sustainable travel modes, the proposal would conflict with Policy ST1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018 and section 8 of the NPPF 2019 (Promoting Sustainable Travel).