Agenda item

Proposal:	Development of site for 7 dwellings with associated access and landscaping
Location:	Land at rear of 40 Cromwell Road, Newbury
Applicant:	NSJ Developments
Recommendation:	The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT conditional planning permission.

 

1.     (Councillors Jeanette Clifford and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and had been present at the planning meeting when the item was discussed. As their interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

2.     Councillor Billy Drummond declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 2 by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Greenham Parish Council and had been present at the meeting when the item was discussed. As his interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

3.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 16/03334/FULD in respect of the development of the site for seven dwellings with associated access and landscaping.

4.     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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.  Consequently, officers recommended the Committee grant conditional planning permission.

5.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Sian Williams, objector, Lee Battersby, applicant/agent and Councillor Jeff Beck, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

6.     Sian Williams in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      She resided at 5 Edgecombe Lane.

·      It might appear that with a lower number of houses on the development, planning permission should be granted, but there were other issues to consider.

·      There would be a great impact on 7a Edgecombe Lane, which would have no privacy.

·      The close proximity of the access road to Orchard Close was a concern.  The distance of one metre had been agreed when two metres had been recommended.  The vehicles using this road would cause noise and pollution and they did not know the height of the road. 

·      There was a risk of flooding as over winter water had been seen running over the pavement.

·      A semi-permeable road surface had been included in the original planning application but had now been removed.

·      The forward visibility splays had been reduced to two metres in one direction.

·      The previous planning application had included a larger vehicle turning circle.  Whilst she acknowledged that the Manual for Streets was only guidance, British Standards indicated that reversing should take place in a straight line and not round a corner, which would be required with the smaller turning circle.

·      There was a risk of damage to the ecology on the site as damage had already been caused to the trees and from the burning of industrial waste.

·      There was a risk of damage to the wild life on the site and she requested confirmation that the transportation of reptiles would occur between March and September.

7.     Lee Battersby in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      He endorsed the main points included in Michael Butler’s report.

·      They had tried to overcome all the previous concerns raised by the Council and officers.

·      When comparing this planning application with the previous one, there were very few differences with the layout of the road.  In addition, the same conditions were included in relation to stabilisation, so they were not proposing anything different.

·      With regard to the proximity of the access road to 7a Edgecombe Lane, it would pass by the flank wall.  This was considered to be acceptable as it was not possible to expect open space around the whole house and this had been discussed at length with planning officers.

·      The houses on the original planning application would have been higher and so there would have been more overlooking.  As a result, the original construction costs had not been economic, which was why they had reduced the number from twelve to seven. 

·      They would accept a condition stipulating that an ecology officer was appointed to oversee any future development of the open space and he assured the Committee that this area would not be abandoned.

·      He was glad that there was acceptance of the condition relating to SUDS, which was the same as in the previous application.

·      The visibility splay was also the same as in the previous application.

·      In conclusion, they had undertaken a considerable amount of work on the planning application in order to produce the right scheme with a better design.  Consequently, he believed it would have less impact on the local amenity than the previous one.

8.     Councillor Jeff Beck explained that he had had previous experience of developers setting up management companies and then going into liquidation.  He, therefore, asked what safeguard the applicant could provide to ensure the open space was maintained for a period of time.  Mr Battersby stated that they were not developers and the likelihood was that the site would be sold, so he suggested a condition was included in relation to this.  He added that a management company was usually set up in order to manage common ground, but he was not in a position to guarantee this.

9.     Councillor Beck enquired about the surfacing of the internal highway.  Mr Battersby advised that the materials used would have to be permeable, would be agreed with the local authority and would be conditioned.

10.  Councillor Jeff Beck in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      It was generally accepted in the local area that some development would take place on this site.

·      This was a low density development and residents should be thankful for this.

·      He suggested that Members addressed the issue about the management of the open space during the debate.

·      He noted that there had been a concern in relation to flooding but the SUDS officer had now withdrawn the objection and he would like to know what the objection was.

·      He was concerned that if there was a different opinion between the SUDS and planning officers, planning would take precedence.  The planning officer’s report had mentioned that the access road might not be adopted because of flooding, which would be unacceptable.  However the Update Sheet had allayed his concerns.

·      Therefore, when all this was taken into account, he felt that the application should be approved although he had sympathy with the residents of Orchard Close due to their close proximity to the access road.

11.  Councillor Anthony Pick noted that the wording in point 6.3.3 about whether the access road would be adopted was unclear.  Michael Butler explained that the SUDS officer had not been aware of the earlier planning consent and now that he had received information from the applicant’s agent, he was satisfied on this point.

12.  Councillor Pick further enquired if the access road would be adopted, to which Michael Butler replied that this was largely irrelevant from a planning perspective.  However, it was important that the developer built out the site as set out in the conditions and the road must comply with the SUDS condition and therefore, the drainage issues would be satisfactorily concluded.  Gareth Dowding added that it was not possible to force a developer to offer a road up for adoption, but it would have to be built to the required standard.

13.  Councillor Pick went on to ask whether the impact of the development on 7a Edgecombe Lane had been considered.  Michael Butler responded that best practice dictated that there should be 10.5 metres between the flank elevation and an adjoining property rear elevation and in this case it would be 11 metres.  He noted that officers were aware there would be some impact on adjacent properties and Members would have to decide on the level of harm that would be caused.  He further added that residents were lucky to have had the benefit of the open space until this point.

14.  Councillor Paul Bryant queried that if the conservatory had been added to 7a Edgecombe Close after it had been built, whether they should be taking it into account.  Michael Butler confirmed that the existence of the conservatory was a material consideration that should be taken into account by Members.

15.  Councillor Bryant went on to ask if the open space had not been included in the density, whether it would still be considered a low density development and Michael Butler advised that this was the case.

16.  Councillor Bryant then enquired about the recommended distance between the highway and adjacent properties as set out in the Manual for Streets.  Gareth Dowding reiterated that this was only guidance and it was acceptable for the distance to be either 1 or 1.5 metres.

17.  Councillor Beck noted that there was no condition relating to the maintenance of the open space or the effect of the development on the ecology.  Michael Butler assured him that condition 2 would cover the maintenance of the open space as the development had to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans.  Condition 16 related to the ecology, however he reminded Members that the planning permission would be transferable to another developer.

18.  Councillor Garth Simpson expressed his concern regarding noise impact on 25 Orchard Close and asked if an additional metre could not have been put between them.  Gareth Dowding pointed out that this layout was the same as the previous one that had been approved.  Michael Butler added that he had been the case officer for the previous application and the impact of noise had been carefully examined at the time.  The traffic generated by this planning application would be less as there were fewer houses.

19.  In considering the above application Councillor Pick expressed his disappointment at the lack of affordable housing on the development and he hoped that the Council would develop a policy in relation to this.

20.  Councillor Bryant expressed his sympathy with Councillor Pick’s view but advised that the Council was constrained by the legislation in relation to the results from viability assessments.

21.  Councillor Pick questioned whether it would be possible for the Council to secure a better development for this site and as he did not think this would be possible, he proposed that the Committee approve the planning application.  This was seconded by Councillor Virginia von Celsing.

22.  Councillor Simpson asked if this could be conditional on the inclusion of an acoustic fence.  Councillor Hilary Cole interjected that as traffic noise ‘bounced’, whatever was put in to mitigate it would move it to another area and so there would be no benefit from an acoustic fence.

23.  The Chairman invited the Members to vote on Councillor Pick’s proposal, seconded by Councillor von Celsing, to approve planning permission.  At the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason:  To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against the advice in the DMPO of 2015 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

Amended plans

2. The development must be carried out in accord with the amended plans received on the 9th February 2017 - plan number DP.110c dated 24.10.16, Plan numbers DP.101, 102, 103 and 104, plus plan number DP.111B.

Reason:  To ensure the development is built as approved to clarify the permission.

Materials

3. No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy C1 in the Adopted HSADPD of May 2017.

Hours of work

4. The hours of work for all contractors for the duration of the site development shall unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing shall be limited to:

7.30 am to 6.00 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays 8.30 am to 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accord with saved policy OVS6 in the WBDLP 1991 to 2006.

Contamination

5. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until points 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

a) Site Characterisation

An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

·      human health,

·      property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,

·      adjoining land,

·      groundwaters and surface waters,

·      ecological systems,

·      archeological sites and ancient monuments;

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

b) Submission of Remediation Scheme

A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

c) Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

d) Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

If required:

e) Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance

A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed with LPA, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accord with the NPPF.

Refuse storage

6.No development shall take place until details of the provision for the storage of refuse and recycling materials for the dwellings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The dwellings shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained for this purpose thereafter.

Reason:   To ensure that there is adequate and safe refuse/recycling facilities within the site.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

CMS

7.No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.  The statement shall provide for:

(a)  The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

(b)  Loading and unloading of plant and materials

(c)  Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

(d)  The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing

(e)  Wheel washing facilities

(f)   Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

(g)  A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Road layout

8. The detailed layout of the site shall comply with the Local Planning Authority's standards in respect of road and footpath design and vehicle parking and turning provision and the Developer to enter into a S278/S38 Agreement for the adoption of the site. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications to these matters which have been given in the current application.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and flow of traffic and to ensure waste collection.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Visibility splays

9. No development shall take place until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres have been provided at the site access.   The visibility splays shall, thereafter, be kept free of all obstructions to visibility above a height of 0.6 metres above carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

Parking

10. No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicle parking and/or turning space have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plan(s).  The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Cycle parking

11. No dwelling shall be occupied until the cycle parking has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings and this area shall thereafter be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and assists with the parking, storage and security of cycles.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Fencing - trees

12. Protective fencing shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the development in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified on approved drawing(s) numbered plan Tree Protection Plan rev E dated November 2016. Within the fenced area(s), there shall be no excavations, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of  the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Watching brief

13. No development shall take place (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until the applicant has secured the implementation of an arboricultural watching brief in accordance with a written scheme of site monitoring, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Tree protection

14. No trees, shrubs or hedges shown as being retained on tree survey Tree Protection Plan rev E dated November 2016 shall be pruned, cut back, felled, willfully damaged or destroyed in any way without the prior consent of the local planning authority.  Any trees, shrubs or hedges felled, removed or destroyed, or any that dies, become seriously damaged or diseased within five years from completion of the approved development, shall be replaced with the same species in the next planting season unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent for any subsequent variation.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

SUDS 

15. No development shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These details shall:

a)   Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Methods (SuDS)  to provide attenuation to greenfield run-off rates and volumes;

b)   Be informed by a full ground investigation survey, details of which shall be included within the submission;

c)   Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all hard surfaced areas within the site;

d)   Include the storage capacity for the proposed surfacing materials based on a 1 in 100 year storm +30% for climate change;

e)    Provide benefits, where possible, such as water quality, biodiversity and amenity.

The sustainable drainage measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before any of the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied.   The sustainable drainage measures shall be maintained in the approved condition thereafter.

Reason:   To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012),  Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006). 

 Cms

16. No development shall take place until the works identified in the J Taylor updated construction mitigation method statement for protected species dated November 2016, have been implemented in full, and maintained during the construction phase to the satisfaction of the LPA.

Reason: To ensure the protection of any species on the site, in accord with policy CS17 in the Core Strategy for West Berkshire dated 2006 to 2026.

INFORMATIVE:

 1. The development hereby approved results in a requirement to make payments to the Council as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) procedure.  A Liability Notice setting out further details, and including the amount of CIL payable will be sent out separately from this Decision Notice.  You are advised to read the Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development.  Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, and the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges.  For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil.

 2. This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.