Agenda item

(No declarations were received.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/00420/FUL in respect of a replacement of existing store with a building for seven bedrooms, single storey link and extension to restaurant at The Fox and Hounds, Oxford Road, Donnington, Newbury.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Stephen Wrzesinski, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers clearly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission

4.         Mr Wrzesinski in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     He extended the applicant’s apologies to the Committee for not being able to attend the meeting.

·                     He explained that the red line on the application drawing denoted the curtilage of the pub and that this was the same drawing that had been discussed at pre-application. Concurrent with the pre-application discussions with Officers, the applicant was negotiating a 15 year lease for land to the south of the pub, to be used for car parking.

·                     An agreement had now been reached on the lease, but due to the cost of an additional planning application fee of £1,600, the applicant had not resubmitted the plans with the parking area included within the red line.

·                     He informed the Committee that all the construction activity could be retained within the current red lined area and that there would be 13 parking spaces made available once construction had been completed.

·                     He was happy to discuss the proposed design of the units. The buildings would be subservient to the pub and would replicate the existing barn, in style. The single storey restaurant balanced the buildings and did not detract from the existing coaching inn. The development would not harm the rural character of the area.

5.         Councillor Paul Bryant enquired if the recently agreed 15 year lease was renewable. Mr Wrzesinski confirmed that it was.

6.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked who owned the wide verge adjacent to the pub. Mr Wrzesinski offered the view that it was part owned by the Highway Authority and the landowner.

7.         Councillor Anthony Pick inquired what materials would be used in the construction. Mr Wrzesinski averred that the new buildings would be sympathetic in design to the existing pub and used similar materials.

8.         Councillor Garth Simpson asked the Planning Officers what change to the tenure of the leased land would make the planning application acceptable. Michael Butler explained that the leased land needed to be included in the red lined area to ensure that any conditions placed on the approval could also be applied to the leased area.

9.         Councillor Cole, as ward member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     She explained that she had called-in the application as she was aware that rural public houses were suffering and it would be a good opportunity to make the Fox and Hounds a more viable operation in this location.

·                     The 15 year lease would be long enough to prove whether the business was viable or not.

·                     She understood the technical quandary of the red line not extending to include the leased land, but asked Officers and Members to have an element of faith and trust and to approve the application.

·                     This development would help the local economy and followed the thread of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance and West Berkshire Council’s policy, to encourage local business.

·                     She drew Members attention to the wide verge and felt that it would be possible for patrons to park on the verge, irrespective of any other car parking space offered.

·                     She understood the Highways Officer’s concern about parking on the road, but felt that although it was a fast road, there were clear sight lines. She also noted that there was a considerable amount of on-road parking all over the district. She gave a plea that Members looked favourably on the application whilst accepting the risks.

10.      Councillor Jeff Beck commented that he understood the sentiments from a legal point of view, and that it had been brought to the applicants attention that the leased area needed to be included in the red lined area, but due to the cost, the plans had not been resubmitted. He asked for clarification from Officers, as to whether the Committee could approve the application with the red line in it’s current position. Shiraz Sheikh and Michael Butler affirmed that Members could approve the current application if they so wished. Michael Butler also confirmed that, as this was not a policy issue, a decision to approve would not need to be referred to the District Planning Committee.

11.      Councillor Beck proposed to grant planning permission, contrary to Officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Cole.

12.      Councillor Bryant reflected that he worried when the Committee voted against Officer recommendations. He felt there was an easy way out and that was for the applicant to resubmit the application with the leased area located within the red line. He was keen to retain the public house and the community facilities, but would be voting against Councillor Beck’s proposal.

13.      Councillor Pick asked for an increased degree of clarity on what effect the conditions would have on the area within the red line. Michael Butler explained that if the leased area were to become unavailable to the applicant or a subsequent owner, West Berkshire Council could serve a Breach of Condition Notice which would effectively enforce that action would have to be taken to maintain highway safety. This enforcement would demand that car parking provision was made. This could not be achieved if the leased land was not in the red line.

14.      Councillor Cole felt that the approval hinged on the Highways Officer’s input. Mr Goddard acknowledged that the red line was a technicality. However, he needed to see that there was enough parking for the property. 13 spaces was not sufficient and additional parking was needed. The leased land was not within the red line and therefore, conditions could not be applied to it. Parking for two or three cars on the road would not be considered a problem. However, if the leased land was not available, this would mean that up to 27 cars would need to find a space on the road. This was not acceptable for highway safety.

15.      Councillor Clive Hooker asked if Officer’s put trust in the evidence of the 15 year lease. Michael Butler explained that the difficulty was with the land not being in the red lined area. He advised that an alternative to resubmitting the plans with an adjusted line could be to secure a section 106 agreement with the landowner in perpetuity. However, this was not a route he would recommend as it would be simpler and cheaper to resubmit the plans.

16.      Councillor Adrian Edwards asked if speed restrictions on the road might allay the Highway Officers’ concerns. Paul Goddard explained that speed restrictions were applied for through a specific separate process and it could not be guaranteed that it would be granted.

17.      The Chairman invited the Members to vote on Councillor Beck’s proposal to approve the proposal, contrary to Officer recommendations. At the vote, four were in favour and five against.

18.      Councillor Paul Bryant countered with a proposal to refuse planning permission in accordance with Officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Pick. At the vote, five were in favour and four against.

19.      RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

Reasons

1.     The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council as Highway Authority that sufficient parking spaces will be available on the application site, once the new development is implemented, were it to be permitted. This lack of on site parking will lead to additional pressures for parking on the public highway, leading to conditions of poor road safety. This in turn is contrary to the advice in the NPPF of 2012, and policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy of 2006 to 2026. It is thus unacceptable.

Informative

In attempting to determine the application in a way that can foster the delivery of sustainable development, the local planning authority has approached this decision in a positive way having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to try to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application the local planning authority has been unable to find an acceptable solution to the problems with the development so that the development can be said to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.