APPLICATION NO: STATUTORY START DATE: 23 April 2014 · STATUTORY START DATE: 23 April 2014 SITE LOCATION 61-63 Bushey Hall Road and Abbeyfield Society Walker Lodge, Ashlyn Close,

Date of Meeting: 16th of October 2014 APPLICATION NO: 14/0449/FUL DATE OF APPLICATION: 28 March 2014 STATUTORY START DATE: 23 April 2014 SITE LOCATION 61-63 Bushey Hall Road and Abbeyfield Society Walker Lodge, Ashlyn Close, Bushey, Hertfordshire DEVELOPMENT Demolition of units 61-63 Bushey Hall Road and Walker Lodge and redevelopment to provide a new building comprising 22 Class C2 extra care home units with ancillary amenities, landscaping, car parking and access. AGENT APPLICANT Miss Amy Jones GL Hearn C/O Agent 20 Soho Square London W1D 3QW WARD: Bushey North

GREEN BELT: No

CONSERVATION AREA: No LISTED BUILDING: Locally Listed Building

TREE PRES. ORDER: No 1.0 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 1.2

That powers be delegated to the Managers of Planning and Building Control to grant planning permission subject to receipt of an agreement of unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act by 11th November 2014. Should the agreement or unilateral undertaking under Section 106 not be completed and signed by 11th November 2014, it is recommended that the Managers of Planning and Building Control be given delegated powers to refuse the planning application, if it reasonable to do so for the reason set below – No S106 Agreement containing clauses that will secure the C2 Use is in place. The Application therefore fails to adequately address concerns raised by the Planning Authority in respect of securing the use as a C2 Use as a consequence of the proposed form of development contrary to the

requirements of policies R2, L5 and M2 of the Hertsmere Local Plan adopted 2003 together with the guidance of the Council's Section 106 SPD 2010.

2.0 Application site / Surrounding area 2.1 The site is located in a predominately residential area on the edge of Bushey. The site is

located on the southern side of Bushey Hall Road and extends to Ashley Close to the rear. The site has an area of 0.25 hectares and contains two large buildings at opposite ends of the site. The building that fronts Bushey Hall Grove, Parkminster, is a Locally Listed Building constructed around 1905. The building is constructed of brown brick with brown roof tiles. The second building on site which fronts Ashlyn Close, Walker Lodge, is a 2 storey building that is finished in red brick with a large board fascia with a pitched roof. This building is currently in use as a care home.

2.2 2.3

The site is bounded by properties on Grove Hall Road, whose gardens back onto the western boundary of the site. There are a number of flatted developments in the area, primarily fronting onto Bushey Hall Road. Ashlyn Close, located to the south of the site, comprises two storey detached and terraced dwellings with parking to the front. Within the rear garden of the site there is a drop in the levels of approximately 0.8 metres. The site has until recently been operated by the Abbeyfield Society. It contains two buildings Walker Lodge and Parkminster, that contain 17 and 16 units respectively, a total of 33 units. The site has been operated as supported sheltered housing with some units sharing bathroom facilities and some with en-suite, all sharing communal services. The site has been vacant for approximately 2 years and is currently heavily overgrown.

3.0 Proposal 3.1 The proposal is for the erection of what is described by the applicant as residential ‘extra

care home units’ for the elderly. This falls within C2 use, which is defined as the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care. The proposed building will take the form of a large 2-3 storey building that will extend from Bushey Hall Road to Ashlyn Close to the rear. The building will contain 22 flats, all of which contain a range of habitable rooms, including separate bathroom, kitchen and lounge facilities. The residents will include those over 55 years and where a degree of care is required there will be appropriate facilities available.

3.2 3.3

The applicant states that the development will benefit from an on-site manager and care contracts to suit individual requirements will be arranged as necessary. Changes from the previous scheme TP/12/1495 Under the previous planning application neighbouring residents had serious concerns regarding the proposed scheme. The following changes have been made to the overall

application to address these concerns:

• Removal of all external projecting balconies and introduction of Juliette style balconies that further limit any potential perceived impact to residential amenities

• Removal of western corner rear element of the proposed building fronting onto Bushey Hall Road to remove this rear projection of the building from the sight line of no. 59 Bushey Hall Road.

• Relocation of the southern element of the proposed building to allow for a clear gap of 16 metres to the rear of 3B Grove Hall Toad

• The development will provide a parking provision of 10 spaces (TP/12/1495 was to provide 11 car parking spaces).

4.0

Key Characteristics

Site Area Approx. 2500sqm

Mix Residential

Dimensions See Plans

Numbers of Car Parking Spaces 10 proposed following discussions with Hertfordshire Highways (originally 11)

5.0 Relevant planning history:

Reference number Description Outcome and date

TP/12/1495 Demolition of units 61 - 63 Bushey Hall Road and Walker Lodge and the construction of a 3 storey building comprising of 16 x 2 bed flats and 6 x 1 bed flats (Extra Care Home Units) with ancillary amenities, landscaping, car parking and access.

Withdrawn - 4 October 2012

6.0 Notifications

6.1 In Support Against Comments Neighbours

Notified Contributors Received

0 74 0 115

6.2 115 neighbours were notified, a newspaper notice and two site notices were erected on

Bushey Hall Road and Ashlyn Close.

6.3 A petition with 330 signatures against the application was received from local residents

objections raised relating to: Impact on visual amenity

• The size of the proposed building is inappropriate and out of keeping with the character of the area.

• Infilling is unacceptable

• Height, mass and density of the development is unacceptable

• Building will dominate the area

• Proposed building looks like an office block which would be out of character in a residential area

• Surrounding area comprises of semidetached and terraced housing, three storey flat complex would be out of character

• Appearance of Bushey Hall Road will be changed dramatically

• A brick wall fronted wall with a railing at Walker Lodge is against the open plan layout of the area

• Consultation statement describes the building as a 2.5 storey building, when in fact it is a 3 storey building

Car Parking

• Insufficient parking proposed for the scheme

• Lack of on-site parking would exacerbate existing parking problems in the area

• Homes are aimed at over 55s, with only 8 car parking spaces proposes this suggests that residents will not drive.

• Lack of parking spaces on site will result in parking on Ashlyn Close and surrounding areas which are already congested

• Estimated 38 residents and 9 staff - proposed parking not sufficient Traffic

• The proposal would exacerbate existing parking problems in the area

• The proposal will result in more congestion that would impede emergency services gaining access to the cul de sac

• Traffic analysis seriously underestimates the amount of traffic the development will generate

• Hazard to pedestrians as a result of increased traffic Residential Amenity

• The height of the three storey building will have a serious impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties

• Three storey building will result in a loss of light and overshadowing

• Considerable loss of amenity for residents of Arranmore Court and other

neighbouring properties

• Proposed balconies will result in a loss of privacy

• The proposal contravenes the Council's Planning and Design Guide Part D

• Proposed glass day room will result in overlooking Access

• There are currently issues with parked cars causing problems for refuse collection

Impact on Listed Building

• Locally Listed building should be retained to protect the character of the area

• demolition of Locally Listed Building should be challenged

• Design of new building on Bushey Hall Road is poor in comparison to the existing building on site

Other

• The proposal will result in extra noise in the area

• There is a covenant on the lands that restricts development on this plot

• Meetings were held with developers and neighbours, not all neighbours were notified of these meetings.

• Demolition and construction works will cause disruption

• Applicant has not demonstrated the need for such an extensive development

• Loss of trees and open green space

• An application to develop a block of flats on the site was rejected in the 1980s

• Abbeyfield is not a "not for profit" organisation

• The site itself is on higher ground than its surrounding neighbours

• Development is not for a change of use but for a far larger enterprise

• Impact on local ecology

• Building over the gardens would result in a loss of open ground to absorb rainwater that may lead to increased flash flooding

• Some residents have put their properties up for sale as a result of the proposal for sheltered accommodation. Sheltered accommodation would have a negative impact on the sale of properties in the area

• Residents of the development are likely to able to drive

• The development would dominate the site in both a physical and psychological way

• Smells and fumes from the restaurant would be unwelcome

7.

Consultations

Planning Policy Team

No objection

Sought clarification of C2 Use during the course of the application.

Highways No objection

Initial comments dated 01/05/2014 recommends a refusal of planning permission.

The submitted site plan shows that there will be are only 11 No. parking spaces proposed to serve the whole development. The proposed continuous dropped kerb is likely to reduce the available on-street parking by approximately 4No. parking spaces, a loss of two more than for the previous design.

The previous parking layout from Ashlyn Close (App No.TP/`12/1495 plan 3246-P-0100) showed a central dropped kerb access with parking for 7No. cars. This proposed a central highway crossover and was considered to be an acceptable arrangement by the Highway Authority, as cars would be able turn within the site and exit in a forward gear.

However, the current site layout plan (3246-P-0100G) shows a revised access and parking layout. The current plan shows perpendicular parking bays for 7No. cars, accessed directly from the footway, thereby creating a 20m length of continuous dropped kerbs. The footway is 1.4m wide, the carriageway width of approximately 4.5m. The proposal would create an overlong dropped kerb with restricted visibility and if permitted, it would be likely add to the danger and inconvenience of pedestrians, with vehicles reversing from the site, across the footway.

During the course of the application discussions were held with the Highways Officer and the agents whereby a new parking layout was agreed.

The applicant has submitted an amended access and parking layout for the rear of the proposed development. The previous layout was recommended for refusal by the Highway Authority for highway safety reasons.

The existing access to the front of the development is unchanged. Four parking spaces will be retained.

The amended plan is a much improved design which shows a central highway access from Ashlyn Close that enables the provision of 6No. parking spaces. The bays will be located between walls which is not ideal. However the applicant has submitted swept path analysis

diagrams showing that, with manoeuvring, the layout enables cars to exit in a forward gear.

Permission is recommended without S106 Contributions.

Tree Officer No objection A site visit has been carried out and the submitted arboricultural report, ref.14017-AIA-MW, has been reviewed. The description of the trees existing on and directly adjacent to the site as identified within the tree schedule, appendix 2, is considered to be a true reflection of their quality and value. A total of 17no. trees have been identified on or directly adjacent to the site, the majority of which are low quality, with 4no. trees of moderate quality that have been shown to be retained. All but the 3no. trees fronting onto Bush Hall Road are situated within the central area of the site, therefore obscured from public view giving them low amenity value. For this reason it would not be considered expedient to place any of the trees under the protection of a TPO. It has been muted that the 4no. trees identified as poplar sp. in the report are in fact native black poplars, Poplus nigra var. Betulifolia. A thorough inspection of the leaf litter beneath the trees was undertaken to see if there was evidence of the poplar spiral gall, Pemphigus spyrothecae, which only infects the native species but no evidence was discovered. A close examination of the young leaves was also carried out to see if they were ‘hairy’ or pubescent and although hairs could be viewed along the leaf edges the extent of the leaves was smooth, glabrous, which has led to the belief that these trees are not native black poplars but are likely to be a hybrid of the black poplar species. For the above reasons and with acceptance of the details contained within the submitted arboricultural report none of the trees should be considered as a constraint to the proposed development. The submitted report and tree protection plan should be adopted.

Environment Agency

No objection. We have identified flood risk as the only constraint on the site. Because the site is under a hectare and located within our flood zone 1 , if falls within our Standing Advice. The main flood risk issue at this site is the management

of surface water run-off and ensuring that drainage from the development does not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere.

Environmental Health No objection

I have reviewed the Ground Investigation report for the above development site carried out by Soils Limited Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants dated October 2011 (Report 12572/GIR).

The scope of works has included the drilling of five window sampler borehole, sampling and testing.

The testing has concluded that the site is low risk and that no remedial measures are required.

Therefore no planning condition relating to land contamination is required.

No further action is required by Environmental Health.

Conservation Officer

The current application reflects a series of discussions held at pre – planning stage. The Conservation Officer recommended that the demolition of the Locally Listed Building is not the subject of objection due to adequate design qualities having been incorporated into the replacement building fronting Bushey Hall Road. The Conservation Officer recommends the use of high quality materials.

Hertfordshire Ecology

No objection. Hertfordshire Ecology have been consulted and have identified the following key points from the reports that have been submitted –

• The key ecological interest on the site were the buildings and scattered trees, which contained features suitable for roosting bats and the introduced shrubs and some scattered trees that had potential to support nesting birds.

• An initial Bat Survey was undertaken in June 2012 and identified the presence of features suitable for bats to utilise within the buildings on site. Further surveys for bats were recommended.

• During the 2013 Activity Surveys, low numbers of foraging Pipistrelle Bats were recorded around the

trees on site, and near to the boundary where they were probably foraging off site. No bats were recorded emerging or re-entering the buildings on site.

• An updated inspection survey was undertaken on July 4th 2013 and found no evidence of bat activity in the loft.

• The site was considered unsuitable for reptiles and amphibians and no further surveys were recommended.

Drainage Services

No objection. Comments: Apply standard conditions. 6 June 2014

Environmental Health & Licensing

No Objection Drawing 3246-P-0200B shows an 'air handing unit' with an acoustic rated closure, a 'duct to kitchen extract' and a 'plant room’ with louvered doors acoustic rated 49dB. It appears that a noise assessment was not submitted as part of this application. However, due to the close proximity of residential premises to the application site and the installation of the abovementioned plant a noise assessment is necessary. All noise measurements and assessments must be undertaken in accordance with the latest issue of BS 4142 or superseding document and, if necessary, an attenuation scheme specified. Similarly, further details of the extraction system are needed to ensure that cooking odours are managed. The Design and Access statement states that an external lighting scheme will be developed - this will need to be approved by the local planning authority.

NHS England No Response received.

Building Control No Response received.

Senior Traffic Engineer

No Response received.

Housing No Response received.

8.0 Policy Designation

• Bushey Urban Area

• Well established residential area of Bushey

• Locally Listed Building 9.0 Relevant Planning Policies National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

Core Strategy – SP1 – Creating Sustainable Development

Core Strategy – SP2 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Strategy – CS4 – Affordable Housing Core Strategy – CS12 The Enhancement of the Natural Environment

Core Strategy – Policy CS16 Environmental impact of development

Core Strategy – Policy CS18 – Access to Services

Core Strategy – Policy CS22 Securing a high quality and accessible environment

Core Strategy – Policy CS25 – Accessibility and parking Hertsmere Local Plan – D20 Supplementary Guidance Hertsmere Local Plan – D21 Design and Setting of Development Hertsmere Local Plan – E3 – Species Protection Hertsmere Local Plan – E7 – Trees, and Hedgerows – Protection and Retention Hertsmere Local Plan – E8 – Trees, and Hedgerows and Development Hertsmere Local Plan – E18 – Buildings of Local Interest Hertsmere Local Plan – H8 – Residential Development Standards Hertsmere Local Plan – S3 – Residential Care and Supported Accommodation

Hertsmere Local Plan – M2- Development and Movement

Hertsmere Local Plan – M12 - Highway Standards Hertsmere Local Plan – R2 – Developer Requirements

Parking Standards SPD July 2014

Planning and Design Guide SPD – Part D Guidelines for Development 2013 10.0

Key issues

• Background to Abbeyfield Society

• Pre- Application

• Use Class of Development

• Design and Visual Appearance

• Loss of Locally Listed Building and Historic Environment

• Affordable Housing

• Residential Amenity

• Highways and Access

• Car Parking

• Drainage

• Trees and Landscaping

• Amenity - Garden Provision

• Refuse

• Ecological Considerations

• S106 Contributions

• Equalities Act

11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4

Comments Background to Abbeyfield Society At the request of the Planning Officer the applicants have submitted detailed information to the background to the Abbeyfield organisation. The Abbeyfield Society is a charitable organisation which has been providing support and care for the elderly since 1956. The aim of the organisation is to enhance the quality of life for older people making their lives easier and more fulfilling and to alleviate loneliness that goes beyond providing residential accommodation in the traditional sense. Abbeyfield are seeking to promote dignity and independent living as far as possible for their residents with care provided as it is required for individual occupants, with increasing levels of care anticipated over time. The average age of a residents residing in Abbeyfield schemes is 87. Examples of other Abbeyfield Developments (also C2 Use) – Ing Royde, Halifax

• Opened in 2013

• Number of units: 30 (mixture of 1 and 2 bed)

• 8 No sold as shared ownership, 22 Affordable rent (public funding was used on this scheme)

Woodlands, Skipton

• Opened in 2013

• Number of units: 31 (mixture of 1 and 2 bed)

• 8 No sold as shared ownership, 23 Affordable rent (public funding was used on this scheme)

Hampton House, Solihull

• Opened in 2012

• Number of units: 28 (mixture of 1 and 2 bed)

• 5 no sold as shared ownership, 23 Affordable rent (public funding was used on this scheme)

Pre-Application Advice 11.5 The applicant engaged in extensive pre-application with Planning Officers and

with the Conservation Officer with regards to the proposed development. At the pre-planning stage, advice given by the Planning Officer was based on the assumption that the scheme would be submitted as a C2 residential institution development.

11.6 The principle of demolishing the locally listed building was considered to be acceptable subject to providing a good design for the replacement building.

11.7 In broad terms, the principle of the re-development of the site has been

established at the pre-planning stage. It was agreed subject to the satisfaction of the Conservation Officer, that the locally listed building could be demolished and the site in its entirety could be redevelopment into a care home scheme to replace the existing buildings on site.

11.8 The pre-application advice provided the applicant with information based on the fact that the use on the site would be a C2 - residential institution; this would include advice on parking and amenity provision which is different for C3 (use as a dwelling house) developments.

11.9 11.10

The applicant and Officers engaged over a lengthy period of time regarding the design and layout of the proposed scheme. The applicant was advised that the residential amenity of neighbouring properties would be a primary issue for this development, given that the new scheme would introduce a new two storey element in the centre of the site. In broad terms, the applicant has submitted a scheme that largely reflects the agreed design and spatial layout advice given at the pre - planning stage. The previous application (TP/12/1495), which was recommended for refusal (but was later withdrawn), stated that C3 Use is the approach normally taken by the applicant elsewhere and relates to their investment model. The case

officer’s report in relation to this application also noted that whilst the applicant had not demonstrated the level of care to be provided, the applicant and officer were in agreement that should it be below 1.5 hours per week, that factor, together with the character of the proposed units (self-contained units etc), would indicate that the proposed development would be within Use Class C3.

11.11 11.12 11.13 11.14

Use Class of Development The current proposal is for the erection of 22 flats that are classified as Use Class C2 Extra Care Residential. The development would include 22 flats, all of which contain a range of habitable rooms, including separate bathroom, kitchen and lounge facilities. The residents will include those over 55 years and where a degree of care is required there will be appropriate facilities available. The planning supporting statements establish that there will be staff employed on site however no information has been submitted indicating how the ‘extra care’ part of the proposals will be operated. Use Classes Order Definitions The Use Classes Order defines C2 (Residential institutions) as follows – use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within Class C3 (dwelling houses). The Use Classes Order defines C3: Use as a dwelling house

a) By a single person or people to be regarded as forming a single household

b) By not more than 6 residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents.

c) By not more than 6 residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within Class C4)

Care is defined as personal care for people in need of such care by reason of old age, disablement, past or present dependence on alcohol or drugs or past or present mental disorder and in class C2 also includes medical care and treatment. (Article 2 of Use Classes Order) Extra Care Housing Extra care housing is sometimes referred to as ‘very sheltered’ housing or housing with care. It is housing that has been modified or designed to suit people with long term conditions or disabilities that make living in their own home difficult but don’t want to move into a residential care home. It enables them to live more independently but with the possibility of obtaining additional support with personal and / or medical care as required. It is different to traditional care home accommodation where meals and living accommodation are communal which is C2. It also differs from traditional sheltered/retirement housing - self-contained accommodation with simply a scheme manager and little care provision – which falls within C3.

11.15 11.16 11.17 11.18

C2 or C3? Counsel opinion on case C2/C3 in relation to extra care units was established as part of a proposal for a Continuing Care Retirement Community at Ashwicke Hall, Marshfield (Crowell Homes Ltd). The Crowell Homes development comprised a nursing home as well as self-contained housing units whose management and operation were closely inter-linked, there are useful indications as to some of the factors that might help the C2/C3 decision. Factors that affected the conclusion that C2 applied in this case included:

• restrictions on Approved occupier (age 65 in that case),

• no alterations allowed (to ensure character of apartment remains one to be occupied by elderly and those in need of care)

• no assigning or sharing possession or occupation without approval, landlord has control over how long property can be left vacant (again to maintain character of the complex )

• what’s included in the service charge – communal facilities, alarm link to central control for emergency medical/nursing cover, heating, hot water, refuse collections, 24 hour trained nursing staff, restaurant

• requirement for occupants to have a Care Plan in place during their occupancy

Hertsmere Example Similarly in Hertsmere, permission was granted for a C2 23 bedroom ‘extra care’ home at Coopers Lane Road, Potters Bar (TP/10/0844). This was accepted to be C2 but whilst it was a very similar type of development to that currently under consideration (self-contained flats with own kitchen and living accommodation together with communal leisure and dining areas) it was clear that the facility would be run in conjunction with an adjoining 60 bed care home. In addition residents would have a minimum of 5 hours a week domiciliary care. Some relevant previous appeal decisions (outside of the Borough) also hinge on the level of care provided. The Inspector in the Tiddington Fields (APP/J3720/A/07/2037666) appeal concluded that 1.5 hours of care, per person, per week, would constitute a C2 use. In this case leaseholders were interviewed to establish their care needs prior to being allowed property and required to pay a weekly management charge for care, and were also restricted (s106) to over 65s in need of care. The level of staffing proposed – 15 FTE was also considered to be more than normal sheltered housing would provide and thus further support a C2 definition. The Inspector in the Warrens Coaches, Wadhurst, appeal regarding 25 extra care apartments

11.19

11.20

(APP/U1430/A/08/2091935) based his decision on the use of the site as C2 on the level of personal care residents were committing to. In this case the applicant proposed residents should be committed to at least 5 hours a week personal care. The RTPI’s Good Practice Note 8 identifies Extra Care Housing as purpose built accommodation in which varying amounts of care and support can be offered and where some services are shared. From a support/ housing care point of view the “crucial factor is that the scheme is capable of meeting the housing with care and/or lifestyle needs of an individual who would otherwise need more intensive home care or a residential care bed. In this respect the most important facilities are :

• an on-site team of carers, including management,

• 24-hour cover,

• ability to provide daily hot meals (usually from an on-site kitchen)

• a ‘heavy-duty’ laundry,

• enhanced bathing and toilet facilities.

• Other shared facilities on extra care schemes may include a residents’ lounge and bar, shops, hairdresser/beauty salon, IT room, trolley/electric scooter parking area, library, crafts/woodworking room, gardening area, gym/leisure facilities and dedicated transport. Some of these facilities are dependent upon economies of scale and only found in extra care villages of 100+ units.”

Housing LIN (Viewpoint 20 Planning Use Classes and EC Housing) defines C2 as - properties not for sale on open market, but restriction (usually through a Section 106 Agreement) on occupants requiring them to be in need of a specified level of care or in receipt of minimum package of care and/or above a specified minimum age. Residents also need to meet eligibility criteria and have an initial assessment and regular reviews of care needs. The involvement of a registered Care Quality commission care provider in the delivery of care may help. It is suggested that provision of care by an on-site care team is more than would normally be provided in a sheltered housing scheme, where receipt of the care also wouldn’t be a condition of occupation. Given the cost of paying for care and accommodation it is unlikely that those not requiring the specialised facilities and services available would take them

11.21

The Applicants Case - Care Provision The proposed development seeks to respond to the current market trends in care provision and requirements to allow greater independence for occupants with changing levels of care and assistance provided as required. The applicant has submitted the following information regarding the proposed use -

• The care requirements for individual occupants tend to increase over time with emphasis placed on supporting an independent lifestyle as far as possible.

11.22 11.23 11.24 11.25 11.26

• The staff to resident’s ratio for the proposed development is likely to be 1:8.

• All occupants of the proposed development will be assessed in terms of care requirements by Abbeyfield, who are a registered provider, prior to occupation.

• Residents may be referred directly by the Local Authority. Prior to occupation all occupants must be assessed to have some care requirement; this is usually anticipated to increase over time.

• At a minimum all future residents of the scheme will require 1.5 hours of care per week. The level of care offered by The Abbeyfield Society can be defined in three categories; low, medium and high, a typical description of each category is set out below:

• Low – less than 5 hours of care required per week; • Medium – between 5 and 10 hours of care provided per week; and • High – over 10 hours of care provided per week. Each care package is tailored to suit the needs of the individual and is continually assessed and reviewed. In Abbeyfield’s experience the usual split amongst care packages is approximately 20% receiving a ‘low’ package, 60% a ‘medium’ package, and 20% a ‘high package’. The Abbeyfield model of care provision allows flexibility for levels of care to be reviewed in relation to changing requirements of occupiers, the level of care required usually increases over time. To provide assurance on the C2 Use we suggest that this minimum care need of 1.5 hours per week could form part of a s106 agreement. As part of the service charge all future occupants will buy-in one meal per day (lunch) as a minimum, the provision of additional meals is optional. This requirement is reflective of the minimum level of care required and also relies on the communal facilities proposed. This is considered important from a nutritional perspective but also encourages residents to socialise within the facility and assists with alleviating loneliness. Assessment Whilst the proposed development seeks to support an independent lifestyle as far as possible the whole facility is proposed to provide accommodation to care for people in need of care. This is by virtue of the care and support on offer and the general availability of these services in addition to the built physical environment supporting the delivery of the care. Thus the building functions as one living unit managed by staff 24/7 and residents would not live in the building if they are not in need of support, care and assistance. It is thereby institutional by virtue of design and operation. The charitable status of the applicant; their commitment to meeting the needs

11.27 11.28

of the community with the mixed tenure approach (set out below); the minimum care provision for all residents and the availability of additional care on demand; the provision of hot meals; communal facilities and accessibility of the proposed development all indicate that the proposal is a C2 Use in accordance with the RTPI Good Practice Note 8. It is Abbeyfield’s experience that given the additional costs of the accommodation in comparison to a private residential flat, the type of accommodation with communal facilities and also the likely occupants of the proposed development it is not likely that the proposal would be attractive to anyone without a genuine care need. Parking The applicant indicates that it is not envisaged that future residents would have vehicles; if any do it is likely to be only a small proportion of residents. The proposed parking spaces would be predominately used by visitors and staff. The average age of residents being 87 with a minimum age of 65 and also the fact that residents require a level of care.

Council’s View on the Proposed Development 11.29 Relevant appeal decisions have determined how C2 is defined in particular

appeal decisions focus on the level of care provided.

Tiddington Fields (APP/J3720/A/07/2037666)

11.30 As previously mentioned within this report, the Inspector in the Tiddington Fields (APP/J3720/A/07/2037666) appeal concluded that 1.5 hours of care, per person, per week, would constitute a C2 use. In this case leaseholders were interviewed to establish their care needs prior to being allowed property and required to pay a weekly management charge for care, and were also restricted (s106) to over 65s in need of care.

11.31 The applicant has built a case for C2 Use by providing the following

information –

• The applicant has stated that 1.5 hours of care will be provided to each resident which could form part of a legal agreement.

• Abbeyfield’s experience elsewhere and relates to the average age of residents being 87 with a minimum age of 65 and also the fact that residents require a level of care.

• Each care package is tailored to suit the needs of the individual and is continually assessed and reviewed. In Abbeyfield’s experience the current usual split amongst care packages is approximately 20% receiving a ‘low’ package, 60% a ‘medium’ package, and 20% a ‘high package’

• Residents may be referred directly by the Local Authority. Prior to occupation all occupants must be assessed to have some care requirement; this is usually anticipated to increase over time.

• As part of the service charge all future occupants will buy-in one meal per day lunch) as a minimum, the provision of additional meals is optional. This requirement is reflective of the minimum level of care required and also relies on the communal facilities proposed.

• The applicant indicates that it is not envisaged that future residents would have vehicles; if any do it is likely to be only a small proportion of residents. The proposed parking spaces would be predominately used by visitors and staff.

Conclusion

11.32 The applicant has demonstrated sufficient evidence that proves that the use will be classified as a C2 Use. To ensure the C2 use is protected, the use of conditions and a S106 will ensure that the C2 use will be further restricted to ensure that the units cannot be sold on as C3 units should the residents pass away. In addition to this, restrictions will be put in place whereby there is no parking for residents. Given the above, the use is considered to be acceptable as a C2 Use, as such there is no requirement for any S106 contributions and residential parking requirements do not apply in this instance.

Principle of development National Policy

11.33 At the heart of the NPPF is paragraph 14 which sets the context for the presumption in favour of sustainable development and how this relates to both plan making and decision making.

Local Policy

11.34 11.35

Policy S3 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy 2013 generally support new care home/community development provided:

• adequate parking is provided;

• landscaping and amenity space is adequate;

• there would be no significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; and

• there would be no significant impact on the visual amenity of the area. Therefore, whilst the principle of developing the site is acceptable in planning policy terms the development will need to comply with other material planning considerations.

11.36 It is considered that the principle of a residential care home (the erection of

what is described by the applicant as residential ‘extra care home units’ for the elderly) on site would be acceptable. The proposed development would be required to meet the objectives of both Local Plan and Core Strategy policies.

Design and Appearance National Policy 11.37 Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework, states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. This is reinforced in more detail by paragraph 58. Local Policy 11.38 Policies H8 and D21 of the Hertsmere Local Plan requires that new

development must respect or improve the character of their surroundings and adjacent properties in terms of scale, massing, materials, layout, bulk and height; retain, enhance or create spaces, views, landmarks or other features which make a material contribution to the character of the area and not impact adversely on prominent ridge lines, or other important features. Policy S3 of the local plan also seeks to ensure that new care home / community development does not significantly impact on the visual amenity of the area. This advice is generally reiterated in Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy 2013 and Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013.

Architectural Approach Surrounding Area 11.39 The area immediately surrounding the application site is characterised by

detached and terrace dwellings and flatted developments. Dwellings on Grove Hall Road are standard two storey semi-detached and terraced properties with parking to the front and gardens to the rear. The dwellings along Bushey Hall Road and Grove Hall Road immediately adjacent to the site offer little or architectural interest to the surrounding area. Dwellings along Ashlyn Close are more modern than those at Grove Hall Road, comprising of detached dwellings varying in style and design. To the south east of the site there is a two storey flatted development with a small access road which leads to garages. To the north and east of the site bordering Bushey Hall Road the neighbouring properties are a mix of 3 storey apartment buildings. Directly adjacent to the site lies Arranmore Court which is a large scale three storey L shaped 1960s building set in off the road. The building offers no visual interest within the streetscene and is considered to be an example of poor 1960s design. In terms of heights, Arranmore Court measures approximately 10 metres in height with street frontage of approximately 29.5 metres.

Proposed development 11.40 The applicant seeks to erect a residential unit that will accommodate 22 flats;

the building will be arranged over a 2 / 3 storey building. The site is extensive in its depth, approximately 92 metres in depth, extending from Bushey Hall Road to the Ashlyn Close to the rear of the site. The site is rectangular in shape, and contains two large buildings at either end of the site and a large garden area in the centre of the site. There are a number of mature trees within the site none of which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. The site is surrounded by residential dwellings on all sides.

11.41 The proposed development will be set back from the respective roads of

Bushey Hall Road and Ashlyn Close. The development is divided into three parts. Villa A will front Bushey Hall Road, Villa B is the central part of the building and Villa C is the element of the building that will front Ashlyn Close. The proposed new building at Villa A will be set slightly forward of the existing building on site, however, it will maintain the overall building line of the street. To the rear of the site the proposed new building at Villa C will be set back from the existing building to make way for a new parking area. Villa B (within the centre of the site) consists of a low level spine building connecting Villa A and C together whilst housing communal facilities as well as accommodation.

11.42 The applicant states that the central part of the building has been offset

towards the eastern boundary and is lower in height so as to exceed the minimum overlooking distances to the residents of Grove Hall Road, whilst seeking to retain some of the mature trees on site.

11.43 The height, massing and scale of the proposed scheme reflect that of the

existing buildings on site. Drawing number 3246-P-0704D indicates the outline of the two existing buildings superimposed on top of the proposed buildings. It is clear from this drawing that the proposed new building fronting Bushey Hall Road, will be similar in height and width to the existing building on site. The proposed development will infill an existing garden area that will link the building to the front and to the rear of the site. Whilst this introduces a new area for development on the site, the applicant has specifically reduced the height and style of this element of the building to ensure that this area is lowered in height and appears ancillary to the main buildings that will front Bushey Hall Road and Ashlyn Close. Letters of objection have been received that make reference to the scale of this element. The overall building will have a depth of 72.5 metres, this is extensive, however it is noted that the building will be used as a care home. Care homes are unique in that they cannot be easily subdivided into smaller buildings, the overall space provided by a care home needs to interlinked so as to provide the care, services and residences of the occupants under one roof. Taking this into account, it is therefore acceptable for a care home to be as extensive as that presented. The Planning Officer is of the view that the building could not be easily broken up into smaller elements in the same way a block of flats could be.

Villa A 11.44 The proposed building that fronts onto Bushey Hall Road is referred to in the

plans submitted as Villa A. The building will measure a height of 9.6 metres and will have a width of 24 metres to the front. The existing building on site measures the same overall height to that proposed and the width is slightly more at 24.5 metres. The proposed building will adopt similar eaves and ridge height as that of the existing locally listed building on site. The subject building will have a similar footprint to the existing building, and will have a number of elements that will project beyond the existing footprint. These elements include a number of double height bay projections to the front and a single storey element to the side.

11.45 As the existing building on site is a locally listed building, there are a number

of key design elements and use of high quality materials that have been incorporated into the design of the building which have been agreed by Officers and the Conservation Officer. These elements include brick quoining, brick plinth detailing, bay windows, the use of reconstituted stone, chimneys, brick banding detailing around the windows, detailing beneath the eaves as well as horizontal banding. The design of the subject building is modern but reflects the traditional design of the original building. Window design and proportions reflect the traditional approach of the existing building on site. It is considered that the design of the proposed new building that will replace the Locally Listed Building fronting onto Bushey Hall Road is acceptable and to the satisfaction of the Conservation Officer.

Villa B 11.46 The central part of the building is referred to in the plans and drawings

submitted as Villa B. This element essentially forms a link between the Villa A and Villa C. The applicant was advised at the pre-planning stage to ensure that the design of the central element is designed sensitively. The scale of this element of the building is notably less than that of Villas A and C. This element will be 2 storeys in height and will have a flat and green roof with a flush parapet. This central element will be modern in its design, and finished in contemporary finishes such as timber cladding and a high level of glazing. A double height pitched roof glazed central element will act as a feature design element on the south east elevation.

11.47 The central element takes the form of a modern contemporary link between

the two main buildings offering some visual relief to the overall bulk and massing of the overall scheme. The proposed central element will provide a necessary link between the two main buildings; the central area will mostly accommodate the communal areas (dining area, lounge, and orangery as well as some office space) within the care home along with three flats. This element will be staggered in places in both height and depth. The highest point of the central area will be 8 metres (orangery lantern), the overall height will vary between 5.8 metres to 6 metres to 6.5 metres. Overall this central element has been designed specifically to reduce the overall visual impact on neighbouring properties and also to appear an ancillary element to the main

care home buildings at the front and rear of the site. Discussions with the Conservation Officer and the agent have ensured that high quality external materials will be used.

Villa C 11.48 The southern Villa fronting Ashlyn Close is set further back within the site than

the existing building creating a parking forecourt. The design of Villa C is considered to be a more modern and contemporary design to that of Villa A. Villa C takes the form of a 3 storey building with 2 storey eaves to the side and rear elevations sympathetic to its neighbours. This two storey eaves is continued along the southern elevation to Ashlyn Close with interruptions in the form of two gable ends and timber effect projecting bay. The gable projection reflects the gable characteristics of the neighbouring properties. The use of gables also helps to frame the elevation by providing "book ends" to each side of the building, adding visual interest to the building. Timber two storey projecting bay demarcates the entrance to the building.

11.49 The existing building Walker Lodge measures a width of 20.3 metres and a

depth of approximately 14.8 metres with a height of approximately 8.6 metres. Walker Lodge is currently in poor condition and in need of upgrading or maintenance. The garden area to the rear of the site is heavily overgrown. The proposed new building will introduce a modern and fresh design into Ashlyn Close. The proposed building will have a height of approximately 9.1 metres, a width of 19.8 metres and a depth of approximately 17.5 metres. The scale of the building is similar to that already in existence. The design focuses on introducing verticality through the use of modern style gable elements, extensive glazing and the use of high quality materials. The proposed building will take on a more modern approach to the built form that Villa A to the front of the site. Villa C takes the form of a modern residential building.

11.50 The parking forecourt to the front of Villa C is located within boundary walls,

railings and buffered by the perimeter planting zone incorporating new trees and planting to enhance the amenity value along Ashlyn Close.

11.51 In addition to this, following a number of objections on the previous scheme, the applicant has introduced a more landscaped approach to the front boundary treatment. A landscaping buffer zone has been introduced between the parking bays to the south of the site and the proposed building providing visual enhancement at this end of the site.

Materials 11.52 The applicant states that the choice of materials has been made with

reference to the local context picking up on the historical characteristics in the area. The applicant, at the request of the Conservation Officer, has submitted additional plans that illustrate the use of high quality materials on the exterior of the proposed buildings. The original plans submitted under the current scheme illustrated a poor variety of external materials that included timber effect cladding on the exterior of Villa B. Following consultation with the

Conservation Officer and Planning Officers, the applicant agreed to provide further details and an improved palette of materials, with the view to improving the overall appearance of the proposed buildings. It was agreed that the materials should reflect the materials used in the surrounding area as well and the detailing in the building front onto Bushey Hall Road should reflect that of the Locally Listed Building. Samples of external finishes can be conditioned to ensure that high quality materials are used.The amended plans submitted provide a greater level of detail that includes the following –

11.53 Villa A (fronting onto Bushey Hall Road)

• Staggered brick quoins to emphasise larger bays and reduce the scale of the elevations.

• A stepped brick plinth

• Stooled reconstituted stone sub cills

• Corbelled brick eaves detailing

• Lead cladding on the front dormers with rolled battens

• Slate effect roof

• Brick lift shaft corbel recess on chimneys

• Window proportions have been adjusted to provide further vertical emphasis and to

• provide domestic scaling

• The external façade will be finished in a multi stock brick with variations in colour and texture.

• Timber entrance to the porch and rolled metal roof to imitate lead. 11.54 Villa B (central section)

The middle section of the building is the contemporary element of the building as such the applicant was advised to consider using high quality materials. The following is a breakdown of the proposed materials that will be used –

• Timber effect cladding has been replaced by timber cladding that will age and weather better than timber effect cladding.

• Glazed Juliette balconies

• Rooflights will be finished in dark grey frames 11.55 Villa C

The building that will front onto Ashlyn Close will be finished in the following materials –

• Red brick on the exterior walls

• Timber cladding on the projecting three storey gable and extended dormer window

• Timber / aluminium composite windows

• Guttering – black

Layout

11.56 Part D of the Planning and Design states that the Council expects that new development across the Borough provides setbacks that, complement the streetscene, avoid impacting on the light and privacy of neighbouring properties, provide flexibility in the siting of buildings, and allow for suitable landscaping and open space. In areas where there are significant separation distances between buildings, Part D of the Planning and Design Guide (2013) requires a 2 metre distance from the side boundaries. Context

11.57 To the front of the site the existing building is set back from the highway by approximately 12 metres, set in from the western boundary by approximately 3 metres and set in from the eastern boundary by approximately 1 metre. The building to the rear of the site is set back from the highway by approximately 7 metres and set off the western boundary by approximately 1.5 metres and 1.5 metres off the eastern boundary. Setting and Spacing

11.58 The plans submitted highlight that the proposed new buildings that will front onto Bushey Hall Road and Ashlyn Close, will maintain existing sky gaps and separation between neighbouring properties and side boundaries will be retained. To the front of the site the plans indicate that a separation distance of 1.5 metres from the western boundary and a distance varying from 1.2 metres to 1.7 metres off the eastern boundary.

11.59 To the rear of the site the proposed new building will be set 1.5 metres off the western boundary and 1.2 metres off the eastern boundary. The garden between the two properties will be infilled with an extensive link building. There are issues with regards to the spacing and setting of this element as it will be well set off the side boundaries.

11.60 In terms of spacing and setting, the proposed main buildings Villa A and Villa C, are in general terms no closer to the side boundaries than the original buildings, with the exception of the western side of 63 Bushey Hall Road which is approximately 3.6 metres off the side boundary (further than what is currently proposed). As the original buildings on site are less than 2 metres off the side boundaries, it would be unreasonable to insist that the proposed buildings should be 2 metres off the side boundaries when no further harm in terms of spacing and setting can be established. Existing frontage

11.61 The existing stone wall to the front of the site will be retained and used as part of the proposed carriage driveway off Bushey Hall Road. To the rear of the site a new brick wall will be introduced as well as planting and landscaping.

Conclusion

11.62 The design and layout of the proposed building is similar to the design that was agreed at with Officers at pre applications stage. Officers and the Conservation Officer engaged in extensive pre planning discussions with regards to the design of the proposed scheme and the impact it would have on the surrounding area. Given that there are two buildings on site at present, the applicant was advised to create a scheme that reflects the height and scale of these building whilst maintain a positive relationship with the existing properties in the area.

11.63 The applicant proposes two main buildings that are similar to height and width

to the existing buildings on site. A new central element (Villa B) introduces a new element to the site that will be lower in height to the two main buildings and will have a flat roof. The Planning Officer considers that the design and spatial layout of the proposed development is acceptable and is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Local Plan Policy H8 and Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

11.64 11.65 11.66

Loss of Locally Listed Building and Historic Environment National Policy Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework, advises that in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage asset affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance". The applicant was advised at pre-planning that it is recommended that the submission of a planning application should be accompanied by a statement describing the significance of the locally listed building and a justification for its demolition. Local Policy Policies E13 and E18 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 seek to retain the architectural and historic character of Listed Buildings. Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy 2013 also reiterates this. Assessment Abbeyfield Bushey Hall Road is identified as Local list no. 197 in the Council's List of Locally Important Buildings (2008). The building is described as a semi-detached house. The building is finished brown brick with red dressings, two and a half storey building with three large decorated chimney stacks and a hipped slate roof facing north onto Bushey Hall Road, located within a

11.67 11.68 11.69 11.70 11.71 11.72 11.73

residential area. In terms of its architectural significance, the building has strong design in the mock Jacobean style and retains some of its original features. Due to its size, the building makes a significant contribution to the local area. The building was built in c1905 (between 1898 and 1910) as a semi-detached residence within the late Victorian suburban expansion of Bushey along Bushey Hall Road. It was built on land owned by Charles William Burge of Richmond House, 24 Aldenham Road. During the pre- application the Conservation Officer was consulted on the proposal to demolish and replace the subject Listed Building. An evaluation of the Locally Listed Building concluded the replacement building would be of sufficient quality to match that of the existing building on site. It is noted that the site is not within a Conservation area. The building to the front of the site (facing Bushey Hall Road) has been locally listed by virtue of the size of the building and the contribution it makes to the street scene. Policy E12 of the Local Plan affords locally listed buildings the same protection as listed buildings in that their preservation is sought where possible. The applicant states that the Abbeyfield Society is a charitable organisation that provides support and care for the elderly. Abbeyfield House on Bushey Hall Road is one of the society's older properties, and as the property is older is does not meet the standards that are found in modern purpose built units. The retention of the house would only be possible if it is redeveloped for an alternative use. The applicant states that due to the repair of the house and the age of the property it is not financially viable to bring the house back up to the standards required in this sector so the house will remain vacant as it has been for some years. It is therefore considered that it is in-keeping with the NPPF's objective of bringing forward sustainable development to allow the building to be demolished in order to enable the reuse of the brownfield site. The current designs reflect a series of pre application discussions held with Officers and the agent. Regarding the architectural style, form, mass and details the proposed design is considered to be of sufficient quality. The proposal is considered to be acceptable and would be considered to be in accordance with Local Plan Policy E18. In relation to the other building on site, Walker Lodge, this building is a post- War block that stands at the end of the former gardens of Abbeyfield. The building has no special architectural or historical qualities. Its replacement would be subject to the same constraints and requirements on good design. Furthermore, the Conservation Officer notes that the scheme is not located within a Conservation Area. Recent negotiations have taken place with the Conservation Officer and the applicant with the aim of delivering high quality materials on this building.

11.74 11.75 11.76 11.77

In conclusion, following discussions with the agent and Officers at pre-planning stage, the applicant has followed guidance provided and provided a scheme to replace the Locally Listed Building that is to the satisfaction of the Conservation Officer. As such, the replacement of the Locally Listed Building is considered to be acceptable and would be in accordance with Local Plan Polices E13 and E18, as well as Core Strategy Policy CS14 and Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The replacement of the Locally Listed Building, Abbeyfield, is considered to acceptable, subject to conditions in relation to external materials and external construction methods. Affordable Housing National Planning Policy

Paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) covers the material planning consideration of ensuring viability and deliverability of proposed development. The NPPF now requires Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to pay careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Assessment Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy (2013) seeks affordable housing on developments of 5 self-contained, residential units of more (gross, or residential sites of more than 0.2 ha, should make provision for an element of Affordable Housing. Policy CS4 applies only to residential properties that would be categorised as C3 under the Use Classes Order. As the proposed development is considered to be a C2 Use there is no requirement for the developer to provide affordable housing. A letter received on August 19th 2014, clarifies that the applicant seeks to offer 7 apartments within the development as Affordable Rent units. It is noted that the applicant is not required to supply affordable housing as it is not specifically stated within the Council’s policies that there is a requirement for affordable housing for applications that are assessed as a C2 Use. Therefore, the applicants’ intent to supply 7 units as affordable rent cannot be legally tied into a Section 106 Agreement, as this would be considered to be unreasonable as there is no policy requirement to do so. Conclusion The proposed development is considered to be a C2 Use, as such, there is no requirement for the developer to provide affordable housing under Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy. However, the applicants have stated within document received by the Planning Officer that it is their intent to supply 7 units as affordable rent. However, as there is no policy requirement to do so this cannot be legally tied into a Section 106 Agreement, as this would be considered to be unreasonable as there is no policy requirement to do so.

11.79 11.80 11.81 11.82 11.83 11.84

Residential Amenity National Policy The NPPF (2012) seeks to ensure that a good standard of amenity is achieved for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Part D of the Planning and Design Guide SPD (2013) seeks to ensure that developments do not result in unacceptable loss of privacy or light to neighbouring residents. Local Policy Criterion on (iii) of Local Plan Policy H8 requires that the privacy and amenity of residents should be maintained with adequate separation between buildings and appropriate distances to site boundaries. Policy H8 criterion (xii) recommends that account should be taken of Supplementary Planning and Design Guide Part D when assessing new developments. Part D of the Planning and Design Guide was updated in 2013. Part D advises that new dwellings should be orientated so that their front and rear building lines fit comfortably within a line drawn at 45 degrees from the nearest edge of the neighbouring front or rear facing windows. In addition, the Planning and Design Guide requires that where developments will be expected to maximise gaps between buildings, particularly where there are facing windows. In addition to this, the guidelines note that where development proposes buildings that face (front or rear) onto the side of existing buildings and vice a versa, they should be a minimum of 10 metres apart (previously this was 16 metres) 45 Degree Line and Outlook Part D of the Planning and Design Guide states that new development should be designed so that outlook is not unduly affected. Where new development would adjoin existing homes, the building line of the new development should not cross a 45 degree line drawn from the nearest edge of any windows, front or rear facing, serving a habitable room (including a kitchen) in the existing home. Privacy and Overlooking The proposed new building will be located within close proximity to a number of existing dwellings, it is therefore necessary to assess the impact of the proposed development on the neighbouring properties in terms of a potential loss of privacy and overlooking. The Planning Officer has received a large number of objections that relate to loss of privacy and overlooking. The applicant has submitted a drawing (drawing number 3246-P-0100J) that indicates the location of windows on nearby properties.

11.85 11.86 11.87 11.88 11.89 11.90 11.91

Assessment of properties to the west of the site Part D of the Planning and Design Guide states that where there are directly opposing windows within new developments to habitable rooms, one and two storey buildings should be a minimum of 20 metres apart. Having reviewed the plans submitted, the proposed building has been designed in such a way that the separation distances meet the requirements of the Council's Planning and Design Guide. Grove Hall Road A number of objections have been received from residents from Grove Hall Road citing reasons for objections that includes overlooking, loss of privacy, and overdevelopment of the site 1 Grove Hall Road The side of the proposed development (Villa B) will be located a distance of 23.4 metres at ground floor level and approximately 25.5 metres from the rear wall at first floor level. As such the distances are in accordance with Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 and will not result in any undue overlooking. 1a Grove Hall Road The side of the side proposed development (Villa B) will be located a distance of 24.6 metres at ground floor level and first floor level from the rear wall of 1a Grove Hall Road. As such the distances are in accordance with Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 and will not result in any undue overlooking. 1b Grove Hall Road The side of the proposed development (Villa B) will be located a distance of 24.8 metres from the rear wall of the property at ground floor level and first floor level. As such the distances are in accordance with Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 and will not result in any undue overlooking. 3 Grove Hall Road The side of the proposed development (Villa B) will be located a distance of 20 metres from the rear wall of the property, at ground floor conservatory and 23.6 from the first floor level. As such the distances are in accordance with Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 and will not result in any undue overlooking. 3a Grove Hall Road The side of the proposed development (Villa B) will be located a distance of 21 metres from the rear wall of the property, at ground floor extension and 23.5 from the first floor level. As such the distances are in accordance with

11.92 11.93 11.94 11.95 11.96

Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 and will not result in any undue overlooking. 3B Grove Hall Road The side of the proposed development will be located a distance of 12 metres from the rear wall of the existing property at ground floor level and 14.8 metres first floor level. As such the distances are in accordance with Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 and will not result in any undue overlooking. 5 Grove Hall Road The rear wall of number 5 Bushey Hall Road will be a distance of 18.6 metres from its rear to the proposed side elevation of Villa C. An 18.6 metre distance is considered to be acceptable and would not be in conflict with the guidance as set out in Part D of the Planning and Design Guide. 7 Grove Hall Road The edge of the proposed building (Villa C) will be located 15 metres from the rear wall of an existing ground floor conservatory and approximately 18.4 metres from the nearest first floor habitable room window. An 18.4 metre distance is considered to be acceptable and would not be in conflict with the guidance as set out in Part D of the Planning and Design Guide. Ashlyn Court (fronting Ashlyn Close) Ashlyn Court is a small enclave of flats set within two storey buildings; Ashlyn Court lies to the south east of the site and a distance of approximately 20 metres from the proposed new building. At ground level, a kitchen and bedroom window of one of the flats will be located a distance of 20 metres from the ground floor and first floor opposing windows of Ashlyn Court. This distance is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the provisions of Part D of Planning and Design Guide. In addition to this a kitchen window at ground level will be distance of 12 metres from a living room window within the flats at Ashlyn Court, overlooking will not be an issue as the new building will be at an angle and will not result in direct overlooking. A kitchen window that will serve flat 14 on the first floor will be 19 metres from the habitable room windows of the flats directly facing the side of this part of the new building. As the habitable room window of Flat 14 is on the side elevation, only a 10 metre separation distance in required, the plans illustrate a distance of 19 metres. Assessment of properties to the south of the site at Ashlyn Close The proposed development will be set back approximately 9.5 metres from the highway to the south of the site. Ground and first floor windows fronting

11.97 11.98 11.99 11.100

onto Ashlyn Close will be located distances that vary from 20.9 to 23.4 metres from the front of the existing properties at 6,8 &10 Ashlyn Close. The subject distances of between 20.9 and 23.4 metres are in accordance with the provisions of Part D of Planning and Design Guide, thereby minimising the impact on the residential amenity of future occupiers as well as existing residents. It is noted that this part of the building fronting Ashlyn Close, will utilise the roof space, essentially creating a three storey element. Part D of the Planning and Design states that where there are directly opposing windows within new developments to habitable rooms, one and two storey buildings should be a minimum of 20 metres apart. As noted previously, the building at ground and first floor levels is 20.9 to 23.4metres metres from the properties at Ashlyn Close. The Planning Officer notes that the windows at third floor level have been recessed back into the building by approximately 1 metre further reducing any overlooking. It is noted that the siting of the proposed new building fronting onto Ashlyn Close will be set back a further 2.5 metres into the site than the current two storey building within this part of the site. Arranmore Court (fronting Bushey Hall Road) Arranmore Court is located to the north east of the site. Arranmore Court is a residential scheme comprising of a number of flats contained within a three storey building. In terms of overlooking to this building there are no issues. The proposed building at Villa A will only have two side windows that will be obscurely lazed, therefore for overlooking is not an issue. In addition to this Villa A has been sited on the same footprint as the original building and will therefore not result in any shadowing of Arranmore Court or breach of the 45 degree line. Bushey Hall Road (59, 57, 55 and 53) The primary dwelling to assess residential amenity is number 59 as it is directly adjacent to the proposed building (Villa A) that will front onto Bushey Hall Road. The proposed building at Villa A will be constructed on the same footprint as the existing building on site; therefore there are no issues in respect of the 45 degree to this property. However, as the proposed building has greater depth to the rear of the site, there could be implications for number 59. The plans submitted highlight that a corner of part of the proposed building has been scaled back slightly to mitigate any of loss of light or outlook that would affect number 59. As there is no impact on loss of outlook to number 59, the closest property to Villa A, there will be no harm caused to the properties at 57,55 and 53 that are located further from the site In terms of overlooking from windows within the new development, there are no windows on the second floor that would give rise to overlooking of numbers 53, 55, 57 and 59 Bushey Hall Road. A kitchen window that will serve Flat no. 11 at first floor level will be obscurely glazed and kitchen window that will serve Flat no.3 will also be obscurely glazed, as such overlooking is not considered to be an issue.

11.101 11.102 11.103 11.104 11.105 11.106

Conclusion Overall it is not considered that the proposed development would result in any undue adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of outlook, overlooking or loss of privacy. The proposed development would therefore comply with Policies H8, D20, D21of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Part D of the Planning and Design Guide. Highways and Access Policy The NPPF (2012) and policies M2 and M12 of the Local Plan (2003) seek to ensure that development proposals are only be permitted in locations where the highway network and the environment can accommodated the amount and type of transport movement likely to be generated. Policy CS25 of the Core Strategy (2013) and the Car Parking Standards SPD (revised 2013) seek to ensure that adequate off street parking is provided on new developments. Accessibility The proposed development will be located within a residential area which has a moderate access to a range of public transport services. Accessibility of the site will be a key determinant of how staff and visitors to and from the facility. Access to the site will be from Bushey Hall Road via a carriage driveway and an additional vehicular access from Ashlyn Close. At present only Bushey Hall Road is used as a vehicular entrance onto the site. Public Transport The site can be accessed from bus stops within a 250m walk from the site. In addition to this Bushey Rail Station is located 1.2km walk from the site, and Watford High Street Station is located 1.1km from the site. Assessment

The applicant proposes that the existing vehicular access to the north of the site is supplemented with a second vehicle entrance providing the opportunity for an "in and out" access arrangement. This will offer a better use of the site and enable vehicles to enter and exit from Bushey Hall Road in forward gear. To the south of the site, the applicant proposes a new parking court that will provide 6 car parking spaces, 2 of these will be accessible spaces. A separate pedestrian and refuse access route is provided alongside all of which will be buffered from Ashlyn Close by a boundary wall with railings and planted borders.

Pedestrian access routes to the building at both the north and south of the

11.107 11.108 11.109 11.110 11.111

site and also via the side gates that will be fitted with controlled secure access. Appropriate use of bollards and kerbs will be used to protect the building and pedestrian routes from vehicles whilst maintaining a level access approach to the building. Vehicle and pedestrian site access off Ashlyn Close are separated to minimise potential conflict with reversing vehicles. Visitors arriving by car will be dropped off close to entrance of canopy of Villa A. Highways comments The applicant has submitted an amended access and parking layout for the rear of the proposed development at the request of Highways Officer. The previous layout (submitted under the current scheme) was recommended for refusal by the Highway Authority for highway safety reasons. The existing access to the front of the development is unchanged with four parking spaces will be retained.

The Highways Officer considers the amended plan to illustrate an improved design which shows a central highway access from Ashlyn Close that enables the provision of 6 No. parking spaces. The bays will be located between walls which is not ideal. However the applicant has submitted swept path analysis diagrams showing that, with manoeuvring, the layout enables cars to exit in a forward gear.

Highways do not consider Section 106 Contributions for sustainable transport are appropriate for the development. Twenty two bedrooms are proposed. However, Care Homes traditionally do not generate high vehicle movements. It is also considered that the current Care Home has numerous bedrooms and therefore Section 106 Contributions will not be requested for this development.

If planning permission is granted it will be important to ensure any construction phase does not cause problems on the adjacent road network. There are several issues to consider, such as, sufficient provision of contractor parking, delivery times, storage of materials, etc. A condition for the developer to submit a construction management plan that covers all the usual construction issues.

Conclusion The Highways officer notes that on-street parking is already occurring in Ashyn Close and the limited amount of on-site parking is likely to result in additional pressure on the limited available on-street parking. He notes that parking would be assessed by the Planning Officer in accordance with the Parking Standards SPD. The existing access from Bushey Hall Road will be improved and a new access from Ashlyn Close is proposed. Overall the Highways Officer has no justifiable reason to recommend a refusal of permission and as such has no objection to the proposed scheme.

11.112 11.113 11.114 11.115 11.116 11.117

Car Parking The Council's Parking Standards SPD (2014) determines the maximum amount of car parking required for residential buildings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The SPD states that Elderly Persons Housing that is classified as C2 would be considered under Non-Residential parking standards. Under this category, C2 (institutions / homes with care staff on premises at all times) will require 1 car parking space per 5 resident bed spaces plus 1 space per 2 non-resident staff. Current parking arrangement on site The existing two buildings Walker Lodge and Parkminster, contain 17 and 16 units respectively, a total of 33 units. The Transport Statement states there will be no increase in the number of staff than the previous staffing levels on site. Assessment The care home proposed is for a 22 unit care home that will comprise of 16 x 2 beds and 6 x 1 beds. The plans submitted indicate that there will be 4 car parking spaces and a drop off area to the front of the site fronting onto Bushey Hall Road. To the rear of the site the applicant proposed 7 car parking spaces. The plans now illustrate a parking area to the rear of the site that will accommodate 6 car parking spaces. In total there will be a parking provision for 10 car parking spaces to serve the overall development. Car Parking Spaces sizes Car parking spaces proposed are in accordance with minimum requirements set out in Part D of the Planning and Design Guide (2013) section 9.8.1 (i) which requires perpendicular car parking spaces to be a minimum of 2.4 x 4.8 metres and parallel spaces should be a minimum of 2 x 6 metres. Car Parking Requirement The Council’s Parking Standards SPD states that Elderly Persons Housing that is classified as C2 would be considered under Non-Residential parking standards. Under this category, C2 (institutions / homes with care staff on premises at all times) will require 1 car parking space per 5 resident bed spaces plus 1 space per 2 non-resident staff. It is noted that there are no parking restrictions in this part of Bushey; parking on the street is common on Grove Hall Road and Ashlyn Close. Residents The care home is a 22 bed home, comprising of the following – 16 x 2 bed units – 32(bed spaces)

11.118 11.119 11.120 11.121 11.122 11.123

6 x 1 bed units – 6 (bed spaces) Potentially, there could be 38 (16 x 2) residents at one time, which would require a parking provision of 7.6 car spaces to meet policy requirements. The Transport Statement states that none of the residents of the care home will own a car or drive. Staff In terms of staffing the applicant has stipulated (in a letter dated July 8th 2014) the staff to resident’s ratio for the proposed development is likely to 1:8. In terms of staffing levels, the Transport Statement (Feb 2014) and the letter dated July 8th states that there will be a total of 9 staff that would work on a variety of shifts – A total of 9 staff would work on site on a variety of shifts:

• 1 full-time Deputy Manager (Mon to Fri 09:00 to 18:00)

• 1 part-time domestic (30 hrs per week)

• 1 part-time General Assistant (Mon to Fri 15:00 to 18:00)

• 2 weekend Relief Managers (Alternate Sat and Sun 09:00 to 18:00)

• 2 weekend General Mangers (Alternate Sat and Sun 12:00 to 18:00)

• 2 night staff (Seven nights of each week from 21:00 to 08:00) There would be a maximum of 4 staff on-site around meal times and a maximum of 3 at all other times in the day and in the evening. As there will be no resident staff on site, The Parking Standards SPD (2014) requires will require 1 space per 2 non-resident staff. The Transport Statement states that a maximum of 4 staff would be working at any one time, with only one working at night time. It is therefore reasonable to require 2 car parking spaces for staff. Accessibility Zones The Council’s Car Parking Standards SPD (2014) classifies Category III Elderly Persons Housing as a C2 use under the Use Classes Order. Parking requirements for Category III housing is classified as Non-Residential Parking Standards. Further to this, Appendix 6 of the SPD provides Non-residential Accessibility Zones within the Borough. These areas have good access to public transport services. The SPD states that applications for new non-residential development in these areas should seek to promote the use of walking, cycling and public transport by providing car parking below the maximum levels set out in the SPD. The site is located on Map 5: Bushey Heath, part of the site that fronts on to Bushey Hall Road is identified as being within Zone where a 75 -100% discount on parking provision can be applied. As only part of the overall site

11.124 11.125 11.126 11.127 11.128 11.129

is contained within the Accessibility Zone, with the rear of the site being outside the accessibility zone, no discount in the levels of required parking applies in this instance. An overall requirement of 10 spaces would be required for the proposed development; the applicant has demonstrated that 10 car parking spaces will be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Councils Car Parking Standards SPD (2014). In addition to this, the Transport Statement concludes that the site is located in an area of moderate transport where there are alternatives to car based trips for both staff and visitor tips. The proposed extra care facility will not lead to any significant increase in staff or visitor vehicle trips. Drainage National Policy The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, paragraph 94, states that Local Planning Authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations. Local Plan Policy Local Plan Policy D3 states that planning permission will not be granted for development within areas at risk of flooding unless it incorporates appropriate flood protection measures. Policy CS17 states that the Council will work with key partners including the Environment Agency to ensure that development proposals do not create an unacceptable level of risk to the occupiers of the site, the local community and the wider environment. Assessment The proposed development site is located within an Environment Agency defined Groundwater Protection Zone (GPZ) corresponding to Bushey Pumping Station. The site is located within Flood Zone 1. The applicant states that drainage design for the site will be developed in accordance with SUDS principles and current best practice. A site investigation has been carried out to confirm that the existing ground conditions (Appendix G). No issues have been highlighted from the Council’s Senior Scientific Officer or the Environment Agency in respect of ground conditions. The report concludes that soakways are not appropriate for this site; as a result storm water from the site will be collected and discharged into the existing combined sewer. The EA states that the main flood risk issue at this site is the management of surface water run-off and ensuring that drainage from the development does not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere. The EA recommends the developer uses the Good their Flood Risk Standing Advice (FRSA).

11.130 11.131 11.132 11.133 11.134 11.135

Overall there are no objections to the proposed development from either the Environment Agency or the Council’s Drainage Team. The works are therefore in accordance with The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, paragraph 94, Local Plan Policy D3 and Core Strategy Policy CS17. Trees and Landscaping Policy Policy E7 requires trees and hedgerows which contribute to the visual amenity to be retained and protected and that new planting is a suitable replacement for any removed trees. Policy E8 states that on sites where existing trees and/or hedgerows are to be retained, proposals must provide sufficient space between trees and/or hedgerows and building to avoid affecting the existing and proposed landscape features. Part D of the Planning and Design Guide (2013) advises that landscaping should reflect the character of the area and enhance the setting of a building. Limited information has been submitted on any proposed landscaping scheme or the retention of any existing trees.

In terms of landscaping and trees, the applicant has submitted an arboriculture impact appraisal ref.14017-AIA-MW, and a tree protection plan that highlights which trees on site will be remained and those that will be removed. It is noted that letters of objection received make reference to the existence of native black poplars on site. The Tree Officer visited the site and is of the view that there are no Native Black Poplars on site. Tree Officer Comments The description of the trees existing on and directly adjacent to the site as identified within the tree schedule, appendix 2, is considered to be a true reflection of their quality and value. A total of 17no. trees have been identified on or directly adjacent to the site, the majority of which are low quality, with 4no. trees of moderate quality that have been shown to be retained. All but the 3no. trees fronting onto Bushey Hall Road are situated within the central area of the site, therefore obscured from public view giving them low amenity value. For this reason it would not be considered expedient to place any of the trees under the protection of a TPO. A total of 12 trees will be removed, the tree report states that those trees to be removed are category C trees and in poor condition. A total of 5 trees will be retained and protected during the course of construction. To mitigate the loss of 12 trees on site, a landscaping scheme is proposed that will provide 10 new trees on site. For the above reasons and with acceptance of the details contained within the submitted arboricultural report none of the trees should be considered as a constraint to the proposed development. The submitted report and tree protection plan should be adopted with any approval given as the detail is

11.136 11.137 11.138 11.139 11.140

sufficient to allow for the protection of trees shown to be retained. Landscaping The proposed site plan submitted highlights elements of proposed planting highlighting both soft and hard landscaping. The Planning Officer is of the view that the detail on the proposed site plan is insufficient in terms of the materials that will be used for hard landscaping. A landscaping scheme should be submitted to ensure that the proposed landscaping on site will be of high quality. This can be dealt with by way of condition. Conclusion A total of 5 trees will be retained and protected during the course of construction. To mitigate the loss of 12 trees on site, a landscaping scheme is proposed that will provide 10 new trees on site. The Planning Officer is of the view that the detail on the proposed site plan is insufficient in terms of the materials that will be used for hard landscaping. A landscaping condition will be imposed to ensure that a high quality landscaping scheme will be implemented on the site. The proposed works are therefore in accordance with Local Plan Policies E7 and E8. Amenity Internal dimensions Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013 provides advice on the minimum acceptable size of gross internal floorspace for proposed residential development. These requirements are demonstrated in the table below –

Dwelling type (bedrooms / persons)

Minimum GIA (square metres)

Single storey unit (including flats)

1b / 1p 1b / 2p 2b / 3p 2b / 4p 3b / 4p 3b / 5p 3b / 6p 4b / 5p 4b / 6p

37 50 61 70 74 86 95 90 99

The plans submitted and the Design and Access Statement submitted indicate the following – 16 x 2 bed flats – measure 68 -77m2

11.141 11.142 11.143 11.144 11.145

6 x 1 bed flats – measure 55 - 65m3 This is in accordance with policy requirements. With regard to bedrooms, the following minimum floor areas for bedrooms should be met:

Bedroom size Minimum floor area of bedroom (m2)

Single 8

Double 12

The plans submitted indicate that the proposed single and double bedrooms are in excess of the minimum floor area of bedrooms as required under the Planning and Design Guide, Section 9.10 residential internal guidelines. Garden Amenity Policy Part D of the Planning and Design Guide (2013) Section 9.6.2 paragraph m requires 1 bedroom units should provide at least 20sqm of amenity spaces, with a further 10sqm of amenity spaces for each additional bedroom. Private useable amenity space can be either communal, allocated to individual to units or a combination of these two options. Assessment The development will consist of the following –

• 6 x 1 bedroom flats x 20sqm = 120sqm

• 16 x 2 bedroom flats x 30sqm = 480sqm

• Total amenity space required (either private or communal) = 600sqm The plans submitted indicate that there will be several communal garden areas within the development site that will equate to 1424.4sqm in total. The applicant makes reference to an area to the front of the site called “North Entrance” which will be discounted from the overall calculation as this area is not considered to be an area of garden that would be considered to be private and usable as this area forms the main entrance to the site from Bushey Hall Road as well as providing drop off area and parking for 4 cars. In addition to this, the area identified as “South Entrance” with an area of 251.2sqm will also be discounted from the overall amenity space calculation, as this area is not considered to be an area of garden that would be considered to be private and usable as this area forms the main entrance to the site from Ashlyn Close as well as providing parking area for 6 cars. The largest garden area is identified on the plans as West Garden that will have an area of 511.6 sq metres, this area will be located directly east of the rear gardens of the properties at Grove Hall Road. A further two garden areas

11.146 11.147 11.148 11.149 11.150 11.151

identified as North East Garden (170sqm) and South East Garden (191.6sqm). A total area of 873.2sqm West Garden 511.6 sqm North East Garden 170sqm South East Garden 191.6sqm The applicant has identified three areas well in excess of the required 600sqm of usable private amenity space that will serve the future residents of the proposed care home. Therefore, the proposed amenity space of 873.2sqmetres, is considered to be acceptable as the plans have demonstrated that the space proposed is both useable and private, and therefore is accordance with the requirements of the Part D of the Planning and Design Guide (2013) Section 9.6.2 paragraphs m and r. Refuse Policy The Hertfordshire Interim Technical Note: Waste storage provision requirements for new developments sets out guidance on the Council’s current requirements for waste and recycling storage provision at new developments. It covers the volume of waste storage space that would be required for a new development and some additional guidance on design for bin storage areas. Part D Section 9.8 of the Planning and Design Guide states that all new development will be expected to provide areas for sorting, storage and collection of materials for recycling and general refuse. Refuse storage areas should be sited sensitively and should be designed not to dominate the appearance of a new development. The maximum acceptable carry distance from refuse storage to collection point is 25 metres. Assessment The agent has confirmed that refuse is currently collected at the front entrance to Walker Lodge and Parkminster. The plans submitted indicate that there will be two areas for refuse storage within the site. Area 1 is located on the Parkminster end of the site adjacent to the car parking area. This area will comprise of two smaller areas that will store 4 x 770 litre bins and 5 x 330 litre bins. Area 2 is located within the site along the eastern boundary this area will comprise of 2 combined areas that will store 4 x 770 litre bins and 5 x 330 litre bins.

11.152 11.153 11.154 11.155 11.156 11.157 11.158

The Design and Access Statement (9.2) states that refuse will be stored within the site and then collected from the Ashlyn Close. Refuse vehicles will access the secondary bin store that is within the 12m maximum designated limits. With regards to clinical waste, the Design and Access Statement states that this type of waste will be stored securely and collected under separate contract. Kitchen waste will store adjacent to the kitchen area and will also be collected under a separate commercial contract. In terms of refuse storage, there are no objections to the proposed development. The works are therefore considered to be in accordance with the Council’s Design Guide Part D (2013) and The Hertfordshire Interim Technical Note. Ecological Considerations National Policy The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, paragraph 109, states that the Planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government commitment to halt the overall in decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Local Plan Policy Policy E3 of the Hertsmere Local Plan is also concerned with the impact of new development on wildlife. The presence of a protected species is a material consideration in a planning decision. It is therefore essential that the presence of or otherwise of a protected species and the development impacts are established prior to the granting of planning permission. Furthermore, under Policy E2 and E3 of the Hertsmere Local Plan (2003), development that would harm wildlife sites or regionally geological sites as well as badgers or species protected under Schedules 1, 5 or 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would be refused planning permission. Assessment As part of the application the applicant has submitted a bat survey in two parts. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd (Dated June 2012) and Nocturnal and Dawn Swarm Bat Survey by Middle Environmental Ltd (Dated July 2013). Hertfordshire Ecology have been consulted and have identified the following key points from the reports that have been submitted –

• The key ecological interest on the site were the buildings and scattered trees, which contained features suitable for roosting bats and the

11.159 11.160 11.161 11.162

introduced shrubs and some scattered trees that had potential to support nesting birds.

• An initial Bat Survey was undertaken in June 2012 and identified the presence of features suitable for bats to utilise within the buildings on site. Further surveys for bats were recommended.

• During the 2013 Activity Surveys, low numbers of foraging Pipistrelle Bats were recorded around the trees on site, and near to the boundary where they were probably foraging off site. No bats were recorded emerging or re-entering the buildings on site.

• An updated inspection survey was undertaken on July 4th 2013 and found no evidence of bat activity in the loft.

• The site was considered unsuitable for reptiles and amphibians and no further surveys were recommended.

The ecologist has concluded that the appropriate survey methodology, evaluation and analysis have been carried out by the ecological consultants and therefore considers that the ecological reports contain sufficient information for the Local Planning Authority to make a fully informed decision regarding the impacts on biodiversity. The proposed development will not impact on any statutory or non-statutory site of conservation importance. The habitats within the site are of insufficient quality to warrant an objection on ecological grounds. Conclusion Overall there are no objections from an ecological perspective to the proposed development; the Ecologist has expressed no concerns regarding the presence of protected species or habitats. As such the works are considered to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Local Plan Policies E2 and E3. S106 Contributions The NPPF 2012 states that requests from local authorities for S106 payments should take into account the development viability to ensure development can be delivered. This to ensure that the scale of obligations and policy burdens are such that the ability to develop viably is not threatened. Policies R2 of the Local Plan 2003 and CS21 of the Core Strategy 2013 require provision for offsite improvements necessary to support new development. This is supported by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. This is detailed in the Planning Obligations SPDs from Hertsmere in 2010 and Hertfordshire County Council (2008). In respect of the proposed development, C2 Use does not require S106 Contributions in the same way that a C3 use would. Further to this, Hertfordshire Highways have stated that no S106 contributions are required as Care Homes traditionally do not generate high vehicle movements. The Highways Officer has also considered that the current Care Home has numerous bedrooms and therefore Section 106 Contributions will not be requested for this development.

11.163 11.164

In the absence of a requirement for financial contributions, a Section 106 will be sought to ensure that all future residents sign up to a minimum care package provided by Abbeyfield on site and other residential care home obligations. This will take the form a clause within a S106 Agreement that will include eligibility criteria, extra care support definitions ,a clause in the agreement would also be sought to ensure that all future residents sign up to a minimum care package and limit the use of any bed spaces to residential accommodation for those in need of care. The following Heads of Terms are to be agreed to ensure that the C2 use in maintained - Heads of Terms Residential Care Home Obligations

Definitions

1. “Assessment Form for Eligibility Criteria” the form that the Care Provider – Abbeyfield - shall use to determine whether or not a person is suitable to reside in an Extra Care Unit which is annexed to this deed at Appendix 1

2. “Basic Care Package” means a minimum of 1.5 hours of Extra Care

Support each week.

3. “Domiciliary Care Provider” means a person firm or company who is qualified to provide the Basic Care Package.

4. “Eligibility Criteria” means the assessment that a person(s) cannot

comfortably reside with less than the Basic Care Package which will be the subject of the Assessment Form for Eligibility Criteria.

5. “Extra Care Support” means various levels of domestic and personal

support provided by the Domiciliary Care Provider to an occupant of an Extra Care Unit potentially including, without prejudice to the generality:

a) cooking, cleaning, ironing, unpacking, personal washing, laundry;

b) trained staff available 24 hours a day to answer emergency calls; Equalities Act

11.165

The Equality Act 2010 came into force in April 2011. Section 149 of the Act introduced the public sector equality duty, which requires public authorities to have ‘due regard’ to the need to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of the relevant protected characteristics, namely: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation, and to advance equality of opportunity. In relation to this specific application at 61-63 Bushey Hall Road and Abbeyfield Society

Walker Lodge, Ashlyn Close, Bushey, due regard has been made to the protected characteristics and it is considered that the proposed development will promote equality by a facility that will provide care to two groups that are defined within the Equality Act. The Equality Act defines the elderly and those with disabilities as Protected Characteristics. As such the provision of the proposed care home would promote equality providing specific care aimed at the elderly and those with disabilities.

Conclusion

11.166 11.167

The principle of a C2 use in this urban location within Bushey is considered acceptable; the applicant has provided sufficient justification and evidence to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority of the C2 Use. In addition to this, the loss of the Locally Listed Building, the design of the new scheme and layout of the proposal have been agreed with Officers and the Conservation Officer following discussions with the agent and is therefore the proposed development is considered to be acceptable introducing a traditional replacement that complements the surrounding pattern of development in the area alongside a modern and contemporary element to the building. In terms of residential amenity there are no issues in respect of the properties located directly adjacent to the development site, there are no issues relating to overlooking, overshadowing, loss of outlook or loss of privacy as the plans submitted demonstrate that the works are in accordance with Part D of the Planning and Design Guide (2013). The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Council’s Parking Standards SPD 2014, in addition to this there have been no objections from Hertfordshire Highways with regards to access and Highway Safety. Overall. the proposed development would comply with Policies H8, D20, D21, E3, E7, E8, E18, M2, M12, S3, R2 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003, Policies SP1, SP2, CS4, CS12, CS16, CS18, CS22 and CS25 of the Core Strategy 2010, Part D of the Planning and Design Guide 2013, the Parking Standards SPD (2014), the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (2014).

12.0 Recommendation 12.1 12.2

That sanpowers be delegated to the Managers of Planning and Building Control to grant planning permission subject to receipt of an agreement of unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act by 11th November 2014. Should the agreement or unilateral undertaking under Section 106 not be completed and signed by 11th November 2014, it is recommended that the Managers of Planning and Building Control be given delegated powers to refuse the planning application, if it reasonable to do so for the reason set below – No S106 Agreement containing clauses that will secure the C2 Use is in

place. The Application therefore fails to adequately address concerns raised by the Planning Authority in respect of securing the use as a C2 Use as a consequence of the proposed form of development contrary to the requirements of policies R2, L5 and M2 of the Hertsmere Local Plan adopted 2003 together with the guidance of the Council's Section 106 SPD 2010.

13.0 Conditions CA01 Development to Commence by - Full CR01 Development to commence by - Full 2 NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL TAKE PLACE UNTIL samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including the cycle storage unit and the refuse storage unit, of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development will enhance the character and visual amenities of the area. To comply with Policies H8, D20 and D21 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013. 3 CB03 Prior Submission - Hard Surfacing

Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development will enhance the character and visual amenities of the area. To comply with Policies H8, D20 and D21 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013. 4 CB13 Prior Submission - Fencing etc (General) Reason: To satisfactorily protect the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. To comply with Policies H8, D20 and D21 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013. 5 NO DEVELOPMENT (including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation clearance) SHALL TAKE PLACE BEFORE a scheme of landscaping, phased in relation to any phasing of the development, which shall include details of both hard and soft landscape works and earthworks, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of each development phase. Any trees, shrubs or plants that

die within a period of five years from the completion of each development phase, or are removed and/or become seriously damaged or diseased in that period, shall be replaced (and if necessary continue to be replaced) in the first available planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives prior written permission for any variation. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development will enhance the character and visual amenities of the area. To comply with Policies H8, D20 and D21 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013. 6 The window(s) to be created in the side elevations of the proposed building - At ground level – Flat no. 1 – kitchen window Flat no. 3 – kitchen window Flat no. 8 – Shower room window Flat no. 6 – Shower room window At first floor level – Flat no. 11 – kitchen window Flat no. 9 – kitchen window Flat no. 16 – shower room and kitchen window Flat no. 14 – Shower room shall be glazed in obscure glass and shall be non-opening below a height of 1.7 metres measured from the internal finished floor level. The windows shall not thereafter be altered in any way without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To satisfactorily protect the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. To comply with Policies H8, D20 and D21 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013. 7 CE16 Construction Management Reason: In order to minimize the amount of mud, soil and other materials originating from the site being deposited on the highway, in the interests of highway safety and visual amenity. To comply with Policy M12 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS25 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013. 8 CG01 Prior Submission - Surface Water Run-Off Surface Water Run-Off NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL TAKE PLACE BEFORE a scheme for the on-site storage and regulated discharge of surface water

run-off has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme Reason: To ensure the proposed development does not overload the existing drainage system resulting in flooding and/or surcharging. To comply with Policy D3 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS16 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013.

Condition 9 No development to take place before a noise assessment, to include mitigation measures if necessary, for the air handling unit, ducts, plant room and any other plant, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented and thereafter operated in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To satisfactorily protect the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. To comply with Policies H8, D20 and D21 of the Hertsmere Local Plan 2003 and Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013.

Condition 10 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

• Site location plan @ scale 1:1250 - drawing number 3246-E-001B date stamped August 19th 2014

• Existing Site Plan - drawing number – 3246-E-0050A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Existing Elevations Sheet 1- drawing number – 3246-E-0051 – date stamped 31/03/2014

• Existing Elevations Sheet 2 - drawing number - 3246-E-0052 – date stamped 31/03/2014

• Existing Street Elevations - drawing number 3246- E -0060- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Proposed Site Plan - drawing 3246- P- 0100J- dated stamped – 29/05/2014

• Proposed Ground Floor Plan - drawing number 3246-P-0200B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Proposed First Floor Plan - drawing number 3264-P-0201C- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Proposed Second Floor Plan - drawing number 3464- P-0202C- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Sketch options for front villa – drawing number - 3246-FSketch 1A - date stamped 25/09/2014

• Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 - drawing number - 3246-P0700 Rev G- date stamped 25/09/2014

• Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 - drawing number - 3246-P-0701 Rev G – date stamped 25/09/2014

• Proposed Elevations Sheet 3 - drawing number - 3246-P-0702 Rev G- date stamped 25/09/2014

• Proposed Elevations Sheet 4 - drawing number - 3246-P0703 Rev G- date stamped 25/09/2014

• Proposed Elevations Sheet 5 - drawing number - 3246-P-0704 Rev F- date stamped 25/09/2014

• Proposed Elevations in Context - drawing number - 3246-P-0710 Rev G- date stamped 25/09/2014

• Proposed Roof Plan - drawing number 3246-P-0900B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 1 bed flat type 1 - drawing number - 3246-P-2000C- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 1 bed flat type 2 - drawing number - 3246-P-2001B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 1 bed flat type 3 - drawing number 3246-P-20002C- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 1 bed flat type 3a - drawing number 3246-P-2003C- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 1 bed flat type 4 - drawing number 3246-P-2004B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 1 bed flat type 4a - drawing number -3246-P-2005B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 5 - drawing number - 3246-P-2006A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 5a - drawing number - 3246-P-2007A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 1 bed flat type 5b - drawing number - 3246-P-2008A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 6 - drawing number – 3246-P-2009B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 6a - drawing number – 3246-P-2010B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 6b - drawing number – 3246-P-2011A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 7 - drawing number – 3246-P-2012A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 7a - drawing number – 3246-P-2013A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Floor Plans 2 bed flat type 7b - drawing number – 3246-P-2014A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Solar Analysis – Existing – drawing number – 3246-P-0800- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Solar Analysis – Proposed – drawing number – 3246-P-0801- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Bushey Hall Road Street View Existing – Artists Impression – drawing number 3246-P-1001 – date stamped 31/03/2014

• Site Sections J-J & K-K - drawing number – 3246-P-0150B- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Design and Access Statement - date stamped – 31/03/2014

• Letters from GL Hearn dated June 5th 2014, July 2nd 2014, July 8th 2014, August 19th 2014

• Planning Support Statement - date stamped – 31/02/2014

• Transport Statement - Paul Mew Associates dated Feb 2014 –file ref P942 - date stamped 31/03/2004

• Aboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement and associated plan T09/0234/P/001 & 3246-P-0100G- Barrell Tree Consultancy - date stamped 31/03/2014

• Proposed Demolition /Tree Removal Plan – drawing number 3246-P-0105A- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Flood Risk Assessment – ref – 1130-1004- Jan 2014- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Report on a Ground Investigation – Soils Limited - Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants report ref 12572/GIR - date stamped 31/03/2014

• QTS Environmental Report – reference 12572 – date stamped 31/03/2014

• Nocturnal and Dawn Swarm Bat Survey – Report number RT-MME-112296- date stamped 31/03/2014

• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey - Middlemarch Environmental Ltd – date stamped 31/03/2014

• Code for Sustainable Homes Ecological Assessment - Middlemarch Environmental Ltd - date stamped 31/03/2014

• Drainage Strategy Report and plan drawing number 11170-CI-001 PL1 - Barry Saunders & Partners - date stamped 31/03/2014

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 13.0 Background Papers 1. The Planning application (14/0449/FUL) comprising application forms, certificate,

drawings and any letters from the applicant in support of the application. 2. Replies from Statutory consultees and correspondence from third parties. 3. Any other individual document specifically referred to in the agenda report. 4. Published policies / guidance 14.0 Informatives

1. Policies The proposal therefore complies with the objectives of the following policies - National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance Core Strategy – SP1 – Creating Sustainable Development Core Strategy – SP2 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Core Strategy – CS4 – Affordable Housing Core Strategy – CS12 The Enhancement of the Natural Environment Core Strategy – Policy CS16 Environmental impact of development Core Strategy – Policy CS18 – Access to Services Core Strategy – Policy CS22 Securing a high quality and accessible environment Core Strategy – Policy CS25 – Accessibility and parking Hertsmere Local Plan – D20 Supplementary Guidance Hertsmere Local Plan – D21 Design and Setting of Development Hertsmere Local Plan – E3 – Species Protection Hertsmere Local Plan – E7 – Trees, and Hedgerows – Protection and Retention Hertsmere Local Plan – E8 – Trees, and Hedgerows and Development Hertsmere Local Plan – E18 – Buildings of Local Interest Hertsmere Local Plan – H8 – Residential Development Standards Hertsmere Local Plan – S3 – Residential Care and Supported Accommodation Hertsmere Local Plan – M2- Development and Movement Hertsmere Local Plan – M12 - Highway Standards Hertsmere Local Plan – R2 – Developer Requirements Parking Standards SPD July 2014 Planning and Design Guide SPD – Part D Guidelines for Development 2013

2. Proactive Statement Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant at the pre-application stage which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186, 187 and 188) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

3. Building Regulations To obtain advice regarding current Building Regulations or to submit an application, applicants should contact the Building Control Section Hertsmere Borough Council, Civic Offices, Elstree Way, Borehamwood, WD6 1WA, telephone 020 8207 2277. For more information regarding Building Regulations visit the Building Control Section of the Councils web site www.hertsmere.gov.uk o To obtain Building Regulations Approval the applicant should apply to obtain either: o Full Plans approval - this will give approval prior to the work commencing and may take up to 5 weeks, or o Building Notice approval - this requires 48 hours' notice prior to the commencement of work. Both of these approvals will require the submission of the requisite fee and 2 copies of drawings and relevant calculations. Having applied for Building Regulations approval, the works applied for will be subject to inspection by Building Control Officers at specific stages to ensure compliance. The applicant has a statutory duty to inform the Council of any of the following stages of work for inspection: Excavation for foundations Damp proof course Concrete oversite Insulation Drains (when laid or tested) Floor and Roof construction Work relating to fire safety Work affecting access and facilities for disabled people Completion Any work that affects a party wall will require approval from the adjoining owner(s). This aspect of the work is a civil matter and does not come within the remit of the Council. Please refer to the Government's explanatory booklet The Party Wall etc. Act 1996, a copy of which is available from the Council Offices, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. More information is available on the Council's web site or for further information visit the Department of Communities and Local Government website at www.communities.gov.uk. 4. Ecology

1. Bats – In the event of bats being found, all works must stop immediately and advice sought as to how to proceed from one of the following: a bat consultant: the UK Bat Helpline: 0845 1300 228: Natural England: 0845 6014523 or the Herts and Middlesex Bat Group : www.hmbg.org.uk

2. Vegetation clearance should be undertaken outside the nesting season (which is weather dependent but generally extends between March – September inclusive). If this is not possible then any vegetation that is to be removed or disturbed should be checked by an experienced ecologist for nesting birds immediately prior to works commencing. If any bird nests are

found during vegetation or building clearance works, the nests will need to be left in situ until the chicks have fledged.

5.Highways

1) Works to be undertaken on the adjoining Highway will require the applicant to enter a Section 278 Agreement with the Highway Authority. Before commencing the development, the applicant shall contact Highways at County Hall 0300 1234047 to obtain their permission and requirements. This is to ensure any works undertaken in the highway is constructed in accordance with the Highway Authority’s specification and by a contractor who is authorised to work in the public highway.

Case Officer Details: Marguerite Cahill - Email Address - [email protected]