36-44 Sandhurst Road Crowthorne Berkshire RG45
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ITEM NO: 08 Application No. Ward: Date Registered: Target Decision Date: 09/00136/FUL Crowthorne 30 March 2009 29 June 2009 Site Address: 36-44 Sandhurst Road Crowthorne Berkshire RG45 7HU Proposal: Erection of part two storey/part three storey building comprising 75 bedroom nursing home with associated communal space, landscaping, amenity space and parking, with vehicular access from Shaw Park, following demolition of existing buildings. Applicant: Sanctuary Group Agent: AKA Planning Case Officer: Ken Lusted, 01344 352000 [email protected] Site Location Plan ( for identification purposes only, not to scale ) Planning & Highways Committee 28th May 2009 1 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (If Any) 05/01092/OUT Validation Date: 21.11.2005 Outline application (including details of siting and means of access) for the erection of 15no. flats and 9no.houses accessed from Shaw Park following demolition of existing dwellings Refused 08/00863/FUL Validation Date: 15.09.2008 Erection of part two storey/part three storey building comprising 75 bedroom nursing home with associated communal space, landscaping, amenity space and parking, with vehicular access from Shaw Park, following demolition of existing buildings. Refused 2 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES Key to abbreviations BSP Berkshire Structure Plan 2001 – 2016 BFBLP Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan BFBCS Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Submission) RMLP Replacement Minerals Local Plan WLP Waste Local Plan for Berkshire SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SPD Supplementary Planning Document RPG Regional Planning Guidance RSS Regional Spatial Strategy (also known as the South East Plan) PPG (No.) Planning Policy Guidance (Published by DCLG) PPS (No.) Planning Policy Statement (Published by DCLG) MPG Minerals Planning Guidance DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government Note: The BSP and the BFBLP contain some policies with the same title, e.g. EN1. In such cases, the policy will be suffixed with an “_S” for the BSP and an “L” for the BFBLP, e.g. EN1_S, EN1L.. Plan Policy Description (May be abbreviated) BFBLP EN1L Protecting Tree And Hedgerow Cover BFBLP EN20 Design Considerations In New Development BFBLP M4L Highway Measures New Development BFBLP M9 Vehicle And Cycle Parking BFBCS CS6 Limiting the Impact of Development BFBCS CS7 Design BFBCS CS10 Sustainable Resources BFBCS CS12 Renewable Energy BFBCS CS24 Transport and New Development Planning & Highways Committee 28th May 2009 3 CONSULTATIONS (Comments may be abbreviated) Crowthorne Parish Council Refusal is recommended on the following grounds: - gross overdevelopment - excessive traffic with possibility of HGV movements which it is supposed would be needed to supply necessities to the development, and ambulance services to the development possibly during the night - impact to local infrastructure - impact to the local environment - wildlife and archaeological - overlooking - no regard to the SPA - loss of character A separate report has been submitted which expands on these concerns. The main issues are: The proposed development will overlook neighbouring properties. The development is on higher land and the 2 storey parts will appear to be 3 storeys high and the 3 storey parts 4 storeys. There are only a few trees to provide screening and many of these are deciduous. The continuous string of the building is out of character with this area. The application site currently has just one house and two bungalows. The proposed 75 bedroom care home is a gross overdevelopment and will have an immense impact upon infrastructure eg waste, sewerage water. The proposal will result in light pollution. Possible night visits by doctors and ambulances will cause disruption for neighbours. The traffic assessment is based on assumptions which may differ from reality. Discouraging staff from using cars is aspirational and will require policing. The prediction that 80 full time staff will result in a maximum of 35 at any one time is questioned. The access via minor residential roads where there are usually parked cars is unsuitable for HGVs. The turn from Byron Drive to Chaucer is particularly difficult. The parking area will cause noise and disturbance for properties in Shaw Park. Transportation Officer There are no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions being attached to any consent and a S106 to secure travel plan and contributions. Planning & Highways Committee 28th May 2009 Tree Officer The proposed layout shown on drawing 02 Rev G is acceptable in principle. Further details and relatively minor amendments are required as specified above, but I am satisfied that if not addressed prior to determination, these can be resolved by attaching pre commencement conditions if this application is approved. Biodiversity Officer Further information needs to be submitted with this application in order to fully assess the impact of the proposals on biodiversity, as follows: 1) Updated ecology survey - the Ecology survey dated March 2009 does not contain any new information and lacks information gained from the protected species survey dated August 2008. In my memo dated 12th December, 2008 I highlighted that the tree officer has discovered two mammal burrows on the site which need investigation by an ecologist and this should be included in an updated ecology survey or brief statement. 2) Landscape plan - there is no plan to show the location of the reptile habitat creation as was previously submitted (drawing 315 001A). This is required to ascertain that adequate mitigation can be provided. Environmental Policy Officer (SPA) In line with the Councils Special Protection Area Technical Background Document (June 2007) and Chapter 11 of the Limiting the Impact of Development SPD (July 2007) (LID), the project as proposed would not adversely impact on the integrity of the site provided: 1. Covenants requiring transfers and leases to prohibit cats and dogs within the premises (excluding guide and assistance dogs) should also be applied in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Template S106. This restriction shall be enforced by the freeholder through the use of yearly surveys submitted to the Council. This is to ensure that predation and recreational pressures on the SPA are not increased. 2. A condition restricting occupancy to frail elderly, to ensure that the proposal does not increase recreational pressure on the SPA. 3. A condition requiring the installation and use of automatic car park barriers to ensure that the general public do not use the car park to visit the SPA Natural England Natural England has no objection to make on this application with regard to protected sites as it will not lead to a likely significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA on the basis of the following assured conditions: Planning & Highways Committee 28th May 2009 1. The development is of C2 classification use only 2. An appropriate section 106 planning obligation guaranteeing a covenant restricting the keeping of pets 3. The car parking is limited to the use by staff, emergency services and visitors to residents only Based upon the information provided Natural England does not wish to object to the proposed development, with regard to protected species, providing that an advisory is attached, should permission be granted, which informs the applicant of the requirement to obtain an EPS Licence from Natural England prior to the commencement of development on site that may affect the EPS Species concerned. Berkshire Archaeology As far as I can ascertain from the topographical survey and satellite images the area of new build will impact mostly on areas previously undisturbed, excepting the existing house footprints. Some landscaping is proposed but the existing tree planting appears to remain as current. With this in mind and the lack of archaeological investigation undertaken here, I would recommend attaching an archaeological condition to any permission granted. Therefore, some archaeological mitigation is required on these proposals, to ensure preservation, by record, of any features or finds surviving below ground. Therefore, I recommend the inclusion of conditions in any planning permission granted. In general terms lack of investigation here relates to the geology, an area of sands of Camberley Formation, the Bracklesham Group. Any previous development on this type of geology would be considered to have impacted on the sands to the extent as not to warrant an archaeological investigation for buried remains/deposits. As there is little known previous impact here, it is likely that archaeology would survive and as little investigation has occurred we cannot simply accept that a lack of known archaeology as evidence of the absence of archaeology. While this site may have been on the boundary of or indeed part of heath land in the past, we have no evidence of that at present. Certainly there are sites on this type of geology to the east including Bronze Age burial mounds and as yet un-investigated Roman site and a possible Medieval site. 4 REPRESENTATIONS Letters and emails have been received from 14 addresses and the local MP expressing the following material concerns about the proposed development: It will be out of keeping with and detrimental to the existing character of Crowthorne. It will be an overdevelopment, overbearing and unduly dominant. It will result in overlooking and a loss of privacy and intrusive lighting. It will result in a loss of light, noise and disturbance. The additional traffic will cause congestion and a danger, especially to children. Planning & Highways Committee 28th May 2009 Byron Close and Shaw Park are unsuitable routes for access. There could be particular difficulties for ambulances and delivery vehicles. The parking is insufficient. There will be a loss of trees and screening provided by vegetation It will have an adverse impact upon ecology, wildlife and protected species It will adversely affect the Thames Basin Heath SPA. Even with a ban on pets staff and visitors are still likely to visit the SPA and may bring their dogs. The existing infrastructure and local facilities are overloaded and unable to accommodate the proposed development.