Agenda item

Reserved Matters application for the construction of a 72bed care home (Use Class C2), with associated access, parking, landscaping, plant, and site infrastructure, pursuant to outline planning permission P19/V1269/FUL.  Details submitted in accordance with conditions 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 48 and 54. As amended by plans and information received 29 September 2021 and 28 October 2021.

The committee considered application P21/V2040/RM for reserved Matters application for the construction of a 72 bed care home (Use Class C2), with associated access, parking, landscaping, plant, and site infrastructure, pursuant to outline planning permission P19/V1269/FUL. Details submitted in accordance with conditions 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 48 and 54. As amended by plans and information received 29 September 2021 and 28 October 2021.

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 explained that the proposed development consisted of an allocated site in the local plan and had been brought to the committee as a result of an objection from Wantage Town Council. It was confirmed that there had been no technical issues raised and that subject to conditions, the application was recommended for approval.

Erik Johnson, representative of Wantage Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Amy Paterson, the agent, spoke in support of the application. In response to questions from the committee surrounding the parking facilities for the proposed care home, Ms Paterson explained that the provision had been based on a multi-site study of existing Care UK facilities, with the evidence submitted to the Highways Authority. Ms Paterson also added that they had based the parking provision on the shift pattern of staff who would be on site at any one time, and that parking spaces had been allocated alongside cycle storage and the consideration that the site was near public transport linkage.

Andrew Crawford, local ward member, spoke in objection to the application.

In response to question raised by the committee on pedestrian movement, the planning officer explained that the road network had been analysed through the conduct of a road safety audit, and it was noted that the existing road had a low speed already in place. The officer clarified that there was a pedestrian link from the east of the site which led to the public square, together with footpaths along the north side of the access road outside of the development and officers felt that a continuous footpath on the south side of the road was not required.

In response to a question on the provision of disabled parking spaces as a proportion of the twenty-six spaces provided by the proposed care home, the planning officer explained that the number of disabled spaces were required based on a proportion of the total spaces provided. Additionally, the officer explained to the committee in response to a further question on a possible continuous footpath, that it had been looked at during an earlier iteration of the application but the current proposal which did not feature one was deemed acceptable.

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

RESOLVED: to defer application P21/V2040/RM to review:

1.     Concerns on the layout of car-parking spaces to serve the site

2.     Concerns for public safety arising from the lack of a continuous pedestrian pavement on the external road outside the proposed development

Meeting Closed at 20:22pm