Objections

Summary of Residents’ Objections and Wiltshire Council’s In-House Solicitor’s View

I would hope that this will be of use if you are objecting to a planning application for a care or nursing home. The below objections did not carry sufficient weight to have the application refused, showing you what may be required.
I have summarised the views of Willowbrook, Witts Lane and Station Road residents and have given Wiltshire Council’s in-house solicitor’s view or opinion. There was a 100% response by those directly affected so it is safe to say the annexe was imposed against the will of residents.
Furthermore, ‘happily’ I was in India for three months, commencing two weeks before the application was submitted.
You will note that consistently there is mention of planning notices not being posted in 1988 or in 2013. There should have been some audit trail to prove it was done. The next batch of notices was there for months.
Several objections are repeated a number of times so I have just taken a cross section of what had been said.

Alternative site
Should re-locate to Widham farm
Would it not be better for a new Care home to be built on the Widham Farm Development which could be purpose built with enough parking and more attractive for residents

Purpose built accommodation being built in Wootton Bassett, Cricklade, Ridgeway Farm
If care home too small should consider moving to bigger site
(Reiterated building new care/nursing homes) Wootton Bassett, Cricklade, Ridgeway Farm ….Perfectly adequate care provisions within 5 miles without Ashgrove House expanding
Another site in the village, apparently available at the time was also suggested

Business Use/ Notices/Consultation
Not on Planning Notice stating premises for business use
No notification letter received
Nowhere says for business use. No notices or neighbours informed.
…I am advised that only houses in close proximity to number 8 had letters sent to them. … Other residents who may have received letters may have been too infirm or had other reasons for not promulgating the information.

1. In-House Solicitor’s View on Change of use from residential to business
*acceptable to change use from residential to care home
*Others using premises for business, not a consideration/planning application cannot be decided on future intentions.
*will be determined case by case basis.Care home has different considerations but improbable other business use would be submitted

2. In-House Solicitor’s View
*applications  advertised by site notices and neighbour letters.
* letters issued in accordance with policy on neighbour consultation. (Available on request). / consultation period extended. Independent Parish Council meeting took place/ agent for the application attended.

Wiltshire Council were asked by the care home’s planning agent whether the matter needed to be referred to the Planning Committee as only four objections ‘and a couple from Swindon residents’ had been received.

Covenants/Future Failure to Comply with Reassurances Given by Care Home Owner
It is well known that Restrictive Covenants in relation to conveyancing are rarely enforceable and that purchasers will buy property in this knowledge.
Once (care home owner) has his Home in place, what guarantee do the residents of Willowbrook have, should any of his undertakings be breached. It is highly unlikely that any licence will be withdrawn and a defence of, sour grapes’ would be adduced
In-House Solicitor’s View
*Restrictive covenants/ clauses in deeds separate from consideration of planning applications. Civil issues. Any restrictions put on developments via condition of a planning application are however matters that we could become involved in to ensure compliance.

I fail to see how Wiltshire Council can totally ignore the 4 directly affected ‘covenanters’ who bought their houses from new and were conferred these rights.

Drainage/Subsidence/Party Walls
We have had problems in the past with waste water from the existing Ashgrove new development and I am sure more will ensue

Storm drains because of drainage issues original builders
Storm drains flooding…High risk of flooding due to deep clay subsoil copious underground water and above ground ponds
Willowbrook built on pasture land with drainage issues
…would like the Party Wall Act looked upon…believe new building is less than 6 metres from our property, meaning that significant measures  need to be undertaken to ensure the safety of my home  and family…believe that underpinning needs to take place.
…ground is now subsiding and concrete (exposed ) through the surface previously unseen…have concerns about land subsidence around my property.
… proposed site plan shows that very little ground will not be covered with hard materials and so will increase the pressure of run-off to neighbouring properties. ..with the extensions being much larger than the original building and with surrounding areas being tarmaced over – thereby forcing run-off to neighbouring properties. … is a concern that a similar hard-surfaced approach is intended with consequent effect on neighbouring properties.

1.In-House Solicitor’s View
*Issues re: boundaries in respect of party walls – are separate civil matters which need to be addressed outside of any planning matters. Any subsidence an adjacent property needs to be addressed independently

2. In-House Solicitor’s View
*site does not lie within a flood plain.

Condition to be set in respect of a sustainable drainage system.

Condition 7- Sets condition – no development until scheme for discharge submitted and brought into force discharging surface water constructed

On 2nd September, 2014 a concrete lorry visited the building site and did not unload. Much later, at 0855 hours a flat backed vehicle which had the appearance and whose logo suggested it pumped liquids arrived. The concrete lorry driver took photographs of the trenches of the footings.
Daniel John showed me Party wall agreements he had been asked to sign.

Fail to Impose Building Restrictions
One resident suggested restriction on hours builders work (9to5) suspects parking will be issue
My own views are well documented on the website and later replies from the Planning Department

Future Concerns
Where does it stop is the biggest concern
… Just the start
There should be more new homes not less
What could happen in the future if other properties within the vicinity of the land purchased for the care home become available for acquisition by the applicant.

Impact/Privacy
“Residents of Willowbrook choose to live in a pleasant quiet residential cul-de-sac and should not have to have their lives impacted upon by the expansion of a care home…Demolition of residential bungalow and erection of new building joining onto (Care Home) unnecessary and detrimental to the character and community of Willowbrook
Access where none before.
Numerous occasions has gone round (to care home) as result of shouting wailing to see if everything okay. Young children distressed
(Care Home’s) alarm system of constant and repeated ‘pings’ is clearly audible in Willowbrook, both inside and out of houses. I have gone to (Care Home) twice to complain over the years. Other noises emanate from (Care Home) such as screaming and wailing. (See also 2009 objection of Dr Beere about ‘pinging’ noise)
In-House Solicitor’s View
Objection raised re potential of noise from the site. Use is for a residential care home, not commercial business uses where heavy machinery may be operated. A care home within a residential location is therefore considered to be an entirely acceptable use.

In-House Solicitor’s View
Safety and security matters have also been raised as an issue. Given that the site is to be accessed from the existing entrance, with the exception of the two spaces serving the carers, this is not considered to be of any concern. The only new door is in the link building therefore it is not considered that any additional pedestrian movements will impact unduly on occupiers of neighbouring properties. Visitors will have to come through the existing front access.

In-House Solicitor’s View
There appears to have been some confusion as to the purpose of the proposed development. This is for a physical expansion of the site, but not to increase staff or resident numbers, merely allow for single occupier rooms in accordance with the 34 spaces currently permitted by Wiltshire Council. The use of the site will therefore not intensify but will cover a larger area. The building itself is not considered to cause unacceptable loss of amenities to occupiers of adjacent properties nor is the design of the building out of keeping with the surrounding area. Highways matters have been addressed by the Councils Highway Officer and the proposal is considered acceptable in this respect. The use of the building as a residential care home is considered entirely acceptable in a residential area

Need for Care Home/Threat of Redundancies
There were four comments about the threatened 20% reduction in staff if permission was not granted. And additionally:-
Threatening to sack staff does no amount to reason to grant
20% misleading and should not be factor taken into account
No requirement for additional beds and don’t take account of 20%
(Wiltshire Council in-house solicitor) states that ‘The property has been marketed for a period of 24 months without success.’ How can she know this and the residents of this street did not? As (in-house solicitor) has ‘nailed her colours to the mast’, where did the information come from, which estate agents was the property advertised with and how was it advertised ? Clearly there was no ‘for sale sign.’
Similarly I would suggest that someone has given Mr ????, (Care Home Owner’s) Town and Planning consultant the impression that there would be encouragement for his application because in the final paragraph of his letter to yourselves dated 28th January, 2013 he states ‘In the light of the details enclosed and the supportive commentary provided….’ This appears to indicate that his application would receive a favourable response.
Wiltshire Council’s Adult care team state…there is no particular shortfall in provision of care home spaces at present based on the home being occupied at full capacity of 34 beds. The resulting bed spaces will not exceed this figure. The proposed development is to facilitate private bedrooms rather than the existing situation where residents share rooms, the Adult Care team therefore support the application
The owner of 9 Willowbrook obviously raised no objection about planning permission and it has now become common knowledge that he has sold his property to (care home owner)  No person I have spoken to knew about the sale although suspecting that negotiations were going on
…no shortage of care facilities.

Lift
…right next to one of our bedrooms. Will cause extra disturbance and would like decibel report
When applying for a planning variation for an additional door to the eastern outrigger, the care home owner’s planning agent stated, ‘My client has discussed the changes with the immediately adjacent neighbour who has raised no objection.’
This issue is well documented on the variation under the reference 14/10184/VAR

In-House Solicitor’s View
The potential of noise from residents and the lift are not considered to be reasons for refusal and any unacceptable disturbances could be addressed through the appropriate channels of the Environmental Health Officers
.

Lighting
(The care home) uses unshaded security lighting unsuitable for a residential area. Will it be used in Willowbrook.
…(believe there will be) new lighting erected around the property. I have three young children.
In-House Solicitor’s Contrary View
Reference has also been made to the potential of light pollution from the site. There is no requirement for internal lights to be turned off in any domestic property and it would therefore seem entirely unreasonable to raise objection to internal lights serving a care home. The site is within a built up area and any external lighting can easily be controlled by way of a condition.

The exterior uses bright lights on movement sensors

Overdeveloped/Appearance
Overbearing stands out.
Makes significant change to the landscape.
Significantly larger than any other development in the street.
Spoil the look of the development there and will create problems for them
Already over-developed with the extensions being much greater than the original building
Quiet residential street. Two storey development will dominate surrounding houses
Further extensions. Already big enough for village
Already a dominant structure
Over-developed and cannot expand any more within own boundaries
Ashgrove House is currently over-developed –
The building will go back the full length of our property then link to the nursing home with another two storey build with windows. The building will be overpowering and create a feeling of claustrophobia being so close to our property
In his Design and Access statement dated 1st February(care home planning agent)states that the footprint of (new building) has been increased but not significantly from 111 sq metres to 180 sq metres. The figure is nearer double to, than one and a half times the original footprint. This increase requires greater scrutiny. Minimising and downplaying the increase and its effect should not be ignored.
In-House Solicitor’s Contrary View
The increase in height is not viewed as out of keeping and the size and scale of the development is not considered to have over crowded the plot.

Is this an opinion? The floor size is around three times the original bungalow’s floor size.

****************************************************
Overlooked/ Light
(Care home) is already a dominant structure in the village, the suggested site is totally inappropriate being among bungalows and wherever the windows are they will overlook neighbours properties including my own which is set at a lower level than Willowbrook.I already have (the care home) bordering one side of my property following a previous extension to the care home this extension would bring their building onto a further boundary and we know from the previous planning applications that this will be just a start

Overlooked upstairs and downstairs  back garden via the new windows on building and link building. At time of writing stated neither overlooked front nor back. Also would result in garden loss of light.
…will have loss of light front and rear (number 7 Willowbrook)
In-House Solicitor’s Contrary View
No windows are shown at first floor on the west side of this link building, with one high level window shown to the east. A further two windows are shown on the east elevation at first floor, one serving bedroom 4, a secondary window, and the other a stair well. Should it prove necessary the agent has indicated that these can be conditioned as obscure glazed.
To the East elevation, bedroom 5 at first floor shows a window. However given the distances between the window and the property to the east of approximately 16 metres, no objection is raised.

Parking/Emergency Services/Traffic/Rear Access
(care home) has a major impact on parking on Witts Lane already
… simply not enough space available now so extending the property will increase this.
People consistently park over my drive and in our visibility splay making it impossible for us to leave or get onto the drive (We had to pay for the drive and get planning permission from the council) and making it very dangerous for us
This week on Monday evening 2 cars were damaged by being hit by passing traffic
There is insufficient parking already at Ashgrove house increasing the number of people working there or visiting will only make matters much

Cul-de-sac just about copes with vehicle movement
I still fail to see that, in terms of expediency, ambulances, undertakers and in-house transport will not use the front entrance of 8 Willowbrook to transport residents. Why should four families with children playing in this cul de sac have to endure the, to date, unknown stress of seeing a covered trolley wheeled to a black van by people dressed in black coats or take their children indoors whilst a body or patient is transferred to a vehicle in the street. If (the care home owner) wants to ensure that this does not happen perhaps he should fully wall the cartilage surrounding the building
Children playing in street
Care Home’s Planning Agent
There are only two parking spaces off  Willowbrook (a fact that can be conditioned) and these are intended for the site manager and Matron only. No one else will access the site from this side as the existing parking arrangements will be unchanged. Obviously at the moment No 8 is an unrestricted residential property, where presumably in the past the postman made daily visits and other visitors and deliveries were made throughout the day, over and above the
comings and goings of the residents. Interrogation of the TRICs database suggests that such a dwelling could be anticipated to generate approx. 9 daily movements. By comparison with the two vehicles twice daily there will clearly be a reduction in activities. I would stress though that the nature of such activities is not materially different from the established residential movement of cars and will have no demonstrable impact on the nearby residents. Having said that I would see no reason why a condition could not be imposed to specify that there should be no deliveries via Willowbrook which would entirely overcome any local concern.

In-House Solicitor’s Contrary View
No objection has been issued to the proposal from Highways Officers subject to conditions and therefore in this respect no objection is raised. The access to the site, as stated on the design and access statement and made clear from the submitted plans will remain from Ashgrove House, with the exception of two staff parking spaces. All visitors will have to use the existing secure entrance and will not be able to gain entry from Willowbrook.

In-House Solicitor’s Contrary View
The potential for local residents seeing ambulances and body bags is an entirely moot point given that the access from Willowbank will serve two parking spaces, for care workers. All other traffic will remain using the existing access from Ashgrove House. In any event the potential for residents viewing such scenes is not a planning matter nor a reason for refusal.

Previous Applications
Several applications turned down
Not long ago applicant had planning permission refused to build up to a two storey building in the new extension it just had built at the rear of the main property of Ashgrove House
See Care Home Owner and Builders section in report

Misc
What contribution is being made Under 106 by the developer and where would monies be spent
Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows the local planning authority, to enter into an agreement/ planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission.  These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.
As far as I am aware there has been no contribution whatsoever from the care home owner.

In-House Solicitor’s View
Objection raised to submitted plan mislabelling No 7 as No 6 Willowbank.  Council uses its own mapping system to determine addresses and in any event it was apparent that the objector letter came from the occupiers of the property to the east of 8 Willowbrook therefore there was no confusion in this respect.

Willowbrook was wrongly named ‘Willowbank’, numbering on a plan was wrong. If they were inaccurate, what else?

.

Transparency
The owner of (the care home) should be asked whether he or an agent acting on his behalf has spoken with any resident of Willowbrook concerning their properties and the nature of that conversation. There is nothing which prevents the owner of (the care home) buying other properties in Willowbrook but he should be transparent about his intentions, not by stealth or incrementally.
There is direct evidence that negotiation has taken place for the purchase of a building/property in Willowbrook by or on behalf of (the care home owner). The purchase may well be subject to a successful application. Assurance is sought that any revised plan submitted on behalf of (the care home owner) be rejected (if this application succeeds which it is hoped it will not) I feel that (the care home owner) could be asked about this matter quite legitimately

Then why was it necessary for Local Conservative Councillor to effectively grant a variation on Planning Permission. The extra window is intrusive and it was always going to be the case that the door would be used as an entrance and for patient’s transportation by ambulance.