Agenda item

Surrey County Council Proposal RU.23/0474 - Former Brockhurst Care Home, Brox Road, Ottershaw, Surrey KT16 0HQ

Outline application for the erection of 3-4 storey building for extra care accommodation, comprising self-contained apartments, staff and communal facilities, and associated parking. Appearance and Landscaping reserved.

 

Minutes:

 

Officers:

Charlotte Parker, Development Management Team Leader

 

Officer Introduction:

 

  1. The Senior Planning Policy Officer introduced the report and update sheet and provided Members with a brief overview. Members noted that the outline application for the erection of 3-4 storey building was for extra care accommodation, comprising self-contained apartments, staff and communal facilities, and associated parking.  Appearance and Landscaping reserved. Members further noted that Condition 4 had been amended to include reference that it was required prior to the commencement of the development. Members noted further details as outlined in the published report.

 

Speakers:

 

  1. Julie Last spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:

 

  1. That she was the chair of the Ottershaw Neighbourhood Forum.
  2. That a facility of this kind was welcomed however local residents were concerned with the proposal.
  3. That the revised design completely removed one wing of the development to remove overshadowing and overlooking issues with adjacent residents. The speaker noted that the proposal had now changed from three to four storeys and the capacity was increased by 7 units to a total of 51 units.
  4. It was noted that local residents remained convinced that a building of these proportions in terms of scale, mass and its slab-sided flat roof design occupying the same plot position as the original outline proposal was significantly overbearing and out of character for the surrounding area.
  5. That residents could not see how any post outline design could remedy this and transform it into a structure of landmark value and that it was exacerbated through the loss of the mature trees which removed any masking from the tallest part of the structure.
  6. That these issues had been highlighted by many objectors.
  7. That the four storey elevation facing Slade Road, due to include balconies and fenestration, was only 20 metres away from the two storey frontages at numbers 4 to 10 and would cause a significant overlooking issue. It was further noted that there was no scope for screening as the façade was four metres from the site boundary.
  8. That a combination of a reduction of unit numbers, partial reinstatement of one to two floors of the removed wing, a reduction in the length of the Brox Road facade and better use of the basement areas, together with improved roof edge details to mask the flat roof façade and additional landscaping could all be considered in order to achieve a design which would better integrate the surrounding area.
  9. That at 25 spaces, parking capacity remained an issue, and was below the parking standard due to spaces to be used for staff. It was further noted that there was no on-street parking in the surrounding area

 

In regard to the Ottershaw Local Plan, a Member asked the speaker whether it included details related to restrictions to the heights of properties in the area. The speaker stated that the Local Plan was in its consultation stage and that the Ottershaw Neighbourhood Forum had submitted comments on potential restrictions to property height. The speaker further stated that most of the properties in Ottershaw and surrounding areas were usually two to three storeys high.

 

  1. On behalf of applicant / Agent, Chris Wilmshurst made the following points:

 

  1. That the site had been specially selected as it met key sustainability criteria for extra care housing being in close proximity to Ottershaw Village Centre.
  2. The site previously accommodated a care home which was demolished in 2021 and so the site was well established for the proposal and the net increase would be marginal.
  3. The design meets all the requirements for affordable specialist housing including being wheelchair accessible throughout and can address current and future needs of its residents and being in the heart of the community will reduce reliance on cars for residents and staff.
  4. That proposal had undergone significant changes since the original submission. This was undertaken in agreement with the planning team and the aim was to create a landmark building at the corner plot, which was a well-established design principle at such locations to act as a focal point. The alterations to the scheme also achieved a reduction in building footprint, allowing for more landscaping and drawing the building further away from neighbouring houses.
  5. That the area was not universally two storey housing.
  6. That the officer report concludes, subject to detailed design, a building of this height a massing could successfully be accommodated on the site. It was further noted that this was an outline application and appearance is a reserved matter, so the final design can be subject to further consideration to assure a quality design was achieved. 

 

Members noted that the rooms were self-contained and included all the facilities needed for residents to serve their own purposes. There would also be a community area which included facilities that all residents can share.

 

A Member asked for detail on the max number of units possible over 3 storeys. The speaker explained that 50 units was the minimum number which could taken on and that standards were rigid with regard to the size of the units. It noted that it would not be possible to include 51 units over three storeys.

 

A Member asked if a lower number of units would be accommodated if the remaining units would be included within another scheme. The speaker explained that units could not automatically be added to other sites due to constraints. 

 

Members noted that the original site included two storeys with a plant room above.

 

Members noted that consultation with local residents included online consultation and evening and daytime meetings.

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

  1. A Member of the committee stated that the application was a corner site on a main road and included a builders yard on one side and commercial unit on the other. Further to this, the Member stated that building land was not readily available in the south-east for the council to achieve its objectives for extra care and so developments need to include additional storeys. 
  2. A Member asked whether any weight could be put on the emerging local plan. The officer stated that it was too early to give any weight to the emerging local plan however weight has been given to the Runnymede Borough Council design documents which identifies Ottershaw as a residential area.
  3. Members discussed the number of units possible and noted that the proposal would include up to 51 units.
  4. A member stated that they were generally in support of the application due to a severe need for this type of accommodation however stated that she was disappointed that the rendering generated showed no windows and due to the trees, which would not be retained. Members noted that trees which were due to be removed as noted within the report.
  5. Officers confirmed that it was possible for the application to return to the committee for consideration on further details.
  6. A Member stated that he was concerned with the overbearing nature of four storeys and felt that three storeys would fit in better in the local area. In regard to consultation with residents, the Member stated that planning officers should have opened dialogue with residents to see what they would support and be in line with the emerging local plan.
  7. Officers reminded Members that they role was to consider the application as submitted and in line with policy.
  8. A Member stated that the need for the building was well-made and that he accepted that the four-storey element was a way to reach the target number of units. It was added that the Member felt that the application should return to the committee for consideration on final details.
  9. Members noted that tree planting was proposed to replace the trees lost.
  10. A Member stressed the importance of considering views from the public consultation and that he would struggle to support the proposal unless the number of units was reduced to the number included within the initial proposal. The Chairman added that the committee could only consider what had been submitted.
  11. The Chairman stated that the extra care units were for the local population and that there was limited land available, and so the council needed to make the best use of the land available.
  12. The Chaiman moved the recommendation which received eight votes in support, two votes in objection and zero abstentions.

 

 

Actions / Further information to be provided:

 

None.

 

Resolved:

 

Pursuant to Regulation 3 of The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Committee resolves to grant outline planning permission for application ref: RU.23/0474, subject to the completion of legal agreement to secure payments (SANG and SAMM) to mitigate the impact of the development of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and subject to the recommended planning conditions noted in the published report and update sheet.

 

That Condition 4 be amended to include reference that it is required prior to the commencement of the development.

 

Supporting documents: