Planning Permission

Residents of Willowbrook are highly critical of Wiltshire Council and its transparency. Unlike preventing the development at Oakbourne by residents, because of the older nature of Willowbrook residents, this matter went largely unnoticed. I would have been the most vociferous and ‘happily’ I was in India from 13th January, 2013. The planning application was submitted on 28th January and by my return on 13th March the parish council meeting had been held.
Amongst examples of other issues include the accepting and taking at face value by Wiltshire Council of what was ‘fed’ to them by others involved in the process with no investigation whatsoever. The effect is that restrictions and conditions are not policed and are no better than having an ‘honesty box.’ Residents in the street say that having granted permission, Wiltshire Council have abdicated authority and totally lack accountability. Criticisms include.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Permission

> Permission was almost granted under the radar as it had been in 1988 for a similar annexe without most Willowbrook residents knowing application had been made until work had started. In this recent case planning notices were displayed belatedly. There is some irony that the Council were asked by the care home’s planning representative whether the matter needed to be referred to the Planning Committee as only four objections ‘and a couple from Swindon residents’ had been received. Another resident made an official complaint that she had not attended the Parish Council meeting because she was unaware that any planning application had been made as she had neither received a letter nor was a green notice posted in or near Willowbrook. There were other such complaints

> Wiltshire Council’s in-house solicitor, according to the care home’s planning representative, provided ‘supportive commentary’. The meaning of this is somewhat ambiguous but the inference could be drawn that prior to the comment being made on 28th January, 2013 that a conversation had taken place between the solicitor and the care home’s Planning Agent.  Were this to be the case, an answer to a question on the application, made by the representative, that there had been no ‘assistance or prior advice’ (a question on the Planning application-also answered on 28th January, 2013) would appear to be inaccurate. The solicitor also asserted that the property had been on the market for sale for two years. My course of action would have been different had I known of the sale and more importantly of the care home’s interest.

> Similarly the phrase, ‘A favourable response was received’ appears on the 2009 Design and Access Statement. It goes on to say ‘… the end of November 2008 and based on the scheme before you very closely matches those original sketch layouts.’ I am sure there is nothing wrong in this but it does make you wonder what is going on behind the scenes and about transparency.
Thirdly in respect of the same 2009 application, how can the local village clerk identify ongoing highway problems but the Transport and Development Manger ‘rubber stamp’ the application.

> A further example of the Planning Meeting deciding on whether permission should be granted apparently not being given the full facts was that the Committee was told that recent laws had reduced the number of places available at the home. In a recommendation from the (then) Senior Project Manager of Adult Community Services at Wiltshire Council, the (former) Senior Project Manager made no opposition to the application but said that there was no shortage of accommodation in the area and the new annexe was required ‘only’ to maintain numbers. They specifically referred to ‘older’ people. It has transpired that the care home owner was quoted in a local evening newspaper as saying that he is the only home in the region to deal with obese residents with Bariatric disorders being treated. It is also known that a local resident was negotiating placing an autistic relative in the new home. Wiltshire Council’s effectively state that permission would have been granted in any case and the care home is registered to care for a range of clients, not just the elderly, and caring for a range of residents was not a change of use. The point was that there having been no mention of anything but the annexe catering for the elderly Adult Community Services, the Planning Committee and Willowbrook residents were either misled or not given the full facts on which to base an objection.

> It has been announced that the Cedars Old People’s home will now be renovated, not sold for redevelopment. It is just over twenty doors away from the care home in question.

> In July 2013 a Planning Meeting took place which Willowbrook residents present were of the opinion that it was little short of a ‘Kangaroo court’. It took place hurriedly late in the evening following two applications with highly excited residents from other towns objecting to the building of supermarkets.  It failed to impose conditions on hours which could be worked by builders. This was in spite of a recommendation by the care/nursing home’s Planning Agent that this condition could be imposed.  A further failure apparently was taking at face value assurances about the use of the rear of the premises. Would permission have been granted had the full facts been known?

>  For seven consecutive weeks, including the Easter and during evenings, work was carried out on the development. When asked by residents, builders stated that the order to carry out this work came from the care home in question. The Local Conservative Councillor indicated that any restriction on hours builders were permitted to work would prolong building work (as did the team leader of the Planning Department). This comment is misleading. Sometimes as few as four vehicles would turn up as builders will prioritise building work.

I was dismissed by the opinion by Area Development Manager (North) about the hurried nature of the Planning Committee with the phrase, ‘I remain satisfied that the decision on the 2013 application was made correctly.’

> The Committee I am told have no power to restrict anything which takes place in Willowbrook itself, just the two dedicated parking bays.

> Issues were pointed out which the Planning Department failed to investigate and took at face value, adopting a ‘tick box’ mentality. Examples include a failure to investigate the purchase of the second bungalow at 9 Willowbrook despite the likelihood being pointed out and it was not taken into account by the Planning Committee in reaching their decision. Its use resulted in work being carried out a matter of three yards from my own lounge window.

> At the Planning hearing, Purton Parish Councillor Mr Geoff Greenaway gave evidence on behalf of Willowbrook residents, contrary to his instructions from the Parish Council. The Local Conservative Councillor also gave similar evidence of the impact on a community of 27 years standing. This councillor struggled to get another Councillor to second their motion to refuse permission.

> I had an exchange with the chairman of the Planning Meeting about walling off Willowbrook. He stated that allowing parking bays was a ‘good idea.’ The relevant extract of the planning decision is far from proscriptive:-
……the use of the car parking spaces shall only be for the use staff car parking. There shall be no deliveries, visitor parking via this car parking space. This area shall be maintained and remain available for this use at all times thereafter.
Had the care/nursing home’s Town and Country Planner not stated that only two vehicles used by ‘the site manager and matron only’ would use the bays the order would allow as may cars as could be parked onto the area. Maintenance vehicles occupy the bays. Residents present at the Purton Parish Council planning meeting would happily tell you about the attitude of one Councillor.