Agenda item

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that her employer was a retirement and care home developer (extra care units). She did not however work for the extra care provider associated with this application, but wanted to raise this for clarification purposes. As her interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 15/02842/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for a residential development of up to 325 houses and apartments (including 70 extra care units) with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping. All matters reserved.

Prior to the Planning Officer’s introduction to the report, Councillor Graham Pask made reference to the need for Members to follow the speaking rights procedure outlined in the Council’s Constitution. This required the Committee to move directly to representations from Parishes, members of the public etc following the Planning Officer’s introduction. Questions to Officers needed to be held until all presentations had completed.

Bob Dray, Planning Officer, then introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         This was a reserved matters application which required a decision from the Committee on the representations to be made at the planning appeal for this application and not to determine the application.

·         The appeal had been lodged by the applicant on the grounds of non-determination of the planning application.

·         The site would sit within the revised settlement boundary outlined in the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD).

·         An affordable housing provision of 8.3% of the dwellings had been negotiated and this equated to 27 affordable units. This was satisfactory to the Council’s independent viability consultants. While this percentage fell short of the Council’s policy requirements, Planning Officers were also seeking a financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the development on education provision, as the development would require an extension to the new Theale Primary School. There was scope on the new school site to accommodate this extension.

·         Officers’ recommendation was to make representations at the appeal that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions and planning obligations outlined in the report. These would form the Heads of Terms for the planning obligation.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Wood, Parish Council representative, and Mr Malcolm McPhail, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Wood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Theale Parish Council objected to this proposed huge development. It would increase the population of Theale by around 30%, change the character of the village and have a negative impact on local infrastructure, i.e. add pressure on the GP surgery.

·                    There were issues with the current sewer system and this would be exacerbated by this development.

·                    The proposed height of the extra care accommodation was concerning, particularly for an area that was adjacent to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·                    Local roads already suffered from congestion and poor sight lines were a factor in some areas. Should the application be approved then mitigation measures would be needed to enhance pedestrian safety, i.e. a new pedestrian crossing. The speed limit should be lowered from 40mph to 30mph. The noise level of local roads would increase.

·                    Mr Wood added the point that the site had a lengthy planning history, but little development had taken place in that time.

In response to a query from Councillor Graham Bridgman, Mr Wood accepted that there was an extant permission on the site for the development of a higher number of houses, but pointed out that the Parish objected to that application also.

Councillor Bridgman then pointed out that as this was an outline application, matters in relation to building height would be a considered at the reserved matters stage. This application was only seeking an in principle view. Mr Wood noted these points, but the concern remained in relation to the proposed building height. Councillor Graham Pask commented that the proposed building heights were given as maximum heights within the plans.

Councillor Alan Law made reference to the Heads of Terms outlined in the report. These included at point six the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes from the site to Station Road and Councillor Law queried whether this would resolve the Parish Council’s road safety concerns. Mr Wood explained that this was not the area of concern, road safety concerns related to The Green.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe queried Mr Wood’s understanding of the number of extra care units. The report stated this as 70, but a figure of 40 had been mentioned. Mr Wood understood this to be 70, as outlined within the report.

Mr McPhail in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The planning history was explained within the planning report and Mr McPhail advised that this had resulted in the applicant seeking residential development. He added that the entire Lakeside site was in the control of a single party.

·                    The extant planning permission on the site did exist as a fall back position and this was for 350 dwellings. This could be implemented should this planning application be refused at appeal.

·                    The lower density application before the Committee was the preferred option. It constituted a complete solution for the entire site and included a higher number of family homes and 70 extra care units.

·                    Mr McPhail made it clear that it was the intention, post obtaining planning consent, to sell the site to a third party developer.

·                    Information on the viability of affordable housing provision (the 27 units) had been provided to Committee Members together with the view of the Council’s consultants on this matter, Dixon Searle. Extensive discussions had been held with Dixon Searle.

·                    Decontamination costs for the site would be significant.

·                    In terms of the S106 education contribution being sought, the applicant had commissioned independent experts to consider this. A detailed report had followed and this gave the view that such a contribution would constitute ‘double dipping’ when considering the previous contributions that had been made for earlier planning applications for the site. CIL contributions would be made.

·                    The highways impact from this scheme was not significant.

·                    A landscape buffer was only required for some areas of the site.

·                    Mr McPhail was delighted to note the recommendation that representations be made at appeal for planning permission to be granted.

·                    Mr McPhail confirmed the figure of 70 extra care units. These would be located within a single apartment block.

Councillor Alan Law queried why approval of the access was not being sought with this application as with agenda item 4(4). Mr McPhail explained that this was based on the advice of the applicant’s planning consultant, it was felt that access routes within the site could be subject to change.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe queried who would be responsible for the lake and its maintenance. Mr McPhail advised that it would be maintained by a management company. He added that the lake would be publicly accessible.

Councillor Mollie Lock read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Alan Macro, Ward Member for Theale, who had given his apologies for the meeting:

·                    The site was a prominent one on the edge of the village of Theale. It was separated from the North Wessex Downs AONB by the A340. It formed the setting to Theale when approaching from either the A4 from the Newbury direction or from the A340. A development of this edge-of-village location should provide a “soft edge” to the village, marking the change from AONB and countryside to the more suburban nature of this end of the village.

·                    The proposed development was not suitable for this edge-of-village location adjacent to the AONB because:

·                It was of high density.

·                It contained three, four and five storey accommodation blocks that would dominate views from approaches to the village and from the AONB. These multi-storey blocks were required to achieve the number of units in the proposal.

·                The proposed four-storey sheltered housing block would dominate views when approaching from the Newbury direction and from the AONB.

·                The proposed four-storey apartment blocks alongside the Theale bypass (A4) would dominate and block views into the site from this busy road.

·                Its layout was mainly of an unsuitable urban grid-pattern of roads.

·                    It would not therefore form the required soft edge to the village.

·                    The lake formed an important part of the site and its setting was very important. The proposed multi-storey apartment blocks on the south side of the lake were inappropriate as they would dominate the landscape and form a high and hard backdrop to views across the lake from the north and east.

·                    The proposed access to the anglers’ car park would provide a short cut for pedestrians from the proposed development to access The Green (to get to Theale Green School or the library, for example). This would be to the detriment of the amenity of residents of the housing alongside this unmade-up lane.

·                    Residents of the proposed four-storey apartment blocks adjacent to the Theale bypass would be subject to disturbance by significant traffic noise. Residents of the upper floors of these blocks would look out over the rail depots and associated industry on the other side of the bypass, as their windows would be higher than the trees screening the depots.

Councillor Pask then asked the Planning Officer whether he wished to comment on any of the points made within the presentations. Mr Dray made the following points:

·                     In terms of access being a reserved matter, the Planning Officer reiterated the points made by the applicant’s agent by stating that the applicant was looking to maximise the level of flexibility, particularly when the site had been sold. Therefore access was a reserved matter.

·                     The views expressed by the Parish Council in relation to the change that would result to the character of the area and the scale of the development were sympathised with, however it was necessary to compare this proposed development with the extant scheme. He added that the Council’s Landscape Consultant had been consulted on the proposal and their focus had been on making such a comparison.

·                    He confirmed that 70 extra care units were included in the application.

In considering the above application Members asked a number of questions of Officers.

Councillor Keith Chopping queried the existing permissions on the site. The Planning Officer advised that planning permission was in place for 350 dwellings on South Lakeside, this was approved at appeal by the Planning Inspector in September 2007. This permission had been lawfully implemented by virtue of the fact that the access road had been built to the site. A Lawful Development Certificate confirmed its lawful implementation. A development of 350 dwellings could therefore be implemented at any time.

A further permission was in place for seven dwellings on land south of St Ives Close, this formed the eastern parcel of North Lakeside and was again allowed at appeal. This permission was well within its timescale for implementation.

Councillor Bridgman commented that there was scope for details to change at the reserved matters stage from this outline application and the design was only indicative. He sought confirmation that this was correct. The Planning Officer stated that the submitted plans provided an illustrative indication of how the site could be developed, and that the parameters plans would fix the maximum extent of development and overall heights, but that the final design could change provided it did not go beyond those parameters. The Planning Officer added that the extant permission for 350 dwellings was a fixed scheme as this had been considered as a full planning application.

Councillor Bridgman then turned to the matter of viability of the affordable housing and queried whether the applicant would still be committed to this requirement at the full planning stage. He wanted to clarify that should the Planning Committee agree to make representations in support of the application at appeal for the outline application, that this would be based on the expectation that elements of the development, i.e. affordable housing, would be delivered once full planning permission was sought. The Planning Officer clarified that viability would be a material consideration at the reserved matters stage. Costs, i.e. for site works could be taken into account in the detailed design. The Planning Officer added that the current position on viability was based on a number of assumptions.

Councillor Metcalfe queried the parking allocation for visitors to the lake and where this would be positioned. Gareth Dowding advised that this was a reserved matter and detail on this point was unconfirmed. This would however be a consideration at the full planning stage.

Councillor Richard Somner was concerned that there was no guarantee that this outline application would materialise at the reserved matters stage, particularly when considering that implementation by the third party developer could ultimately be phased. The Planning Officer explained that should the development be phased then this would be reflected in conditions. He suggested that, if Members were minded to support the recommendation, an addition could be made to the resolution to request that any phased development be well planned with a master plan in place at the outset (i.e. accompanying the first reserved matters application). This would afford some protection for the development of the entire site in a piecemeal fashion.

Councillor Somner remained concerned as more than one developer could be involved over time. David Pearson sought to assure Members by explaining that Planning Officers had much experience of managing phased developments with different developers. Officers would work to ensure that a phased development was coherent and well managed.

Councillor Law supported the suggestion of a master plan for the site to help manage the phased development.

Sarah Clarke made the point that the Committee, if they accepted Officers’ recommendation, would be delegating authority to Officers to secure conditions and this could include a master plan for a phased development.

Councillor Law opened the debate by commenting that Officers had spent an extensive amount of time in complex negotiations for this site. Extant permission was also in place for 350 dwellings. He therefore proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation for representations to be made at appeal that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions and planning obligations outlined in the report, with the additional requirement that a master plan should be provided for the phased element of the development.

Councillor Chopping seconded the proposal. He added his view that the existing permission was not of a high quality and the outline proposal would be a significant improvement. Councillor Chopping felt that it was important that the requirement for an overage clause be included in the resolution text.

Councillor Peter Argyle commented that Theale was a village and the proposed development would alter its character. He sympathised with the concerns expressed by the parish, but the extant permission given by the Planning Inspector was in existence. He was therefore in reluctant agreement with the proposal.

Councillor Webster thanked the applicant’s agent for his transparency. She commented that the potential development of this site had been ongoing for some time and it would be pleasing if this could be resolved. She was however disappointed that the decision would be taken at appeal and not determined at this local level. Councillor Webster also gave thanks to Officers for their extensive efforts in working on the development of this site.

Councillor Bridgman advised that he was familiar with this site as a Governor of Theale Green Secondary School. He reiterated the points already made on the importance of mitigating the impact of the development on education. This was a crucial element of the Heads of Terms.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to make representations at appeal that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and planning obligations to secure the following:

1.         A contribution towards the extension of the new (to be constructed) Theale Primary School to enable the extension of the school by 0.5FE.

2.         The provision of on-site affordable housing comprising 27 units of affordable housing, together with an overage clause to trigger a later stage viability review.

3.         The provision and transfer to the Council (with commuted sum) of public open space.

4.         A travel plan.

5.         Improving the two nearby bus stops with the provision of fully enclosed bus shelters with high kerbing and relocation of the eastbound bus stop, with the footway to the westbound bus stop widened to 2 metres in width.

6.         The provision of pedestrian and cycle route from the site to Station Road (running parallel and adjacent to the A4).

7.         Provision of a pedestrian crossing facility within Station Road.

8.         Secure master planning and phasing of the development at the first reserved matters application.  

To authorise the Head of Planning & Countryside to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990 to secure the above Heads of Terms.