Agenda item

(Councillor Richard Crumly declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the owner of the land in question was known to him. He was a Member of Thatcham Town Council and had been present during the discussion of this item, but had abstained from voting and would consider the application afresh. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Lee Dillon declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Thatcham Town Council and had served with the applicant on the Town Council. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/00742/FULMAJ in respect of the development of five live/work units on land north of the Travellers Friend.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Jean Norman and Mrs Sheila Ellison, supporters, Mr Duncan Crook, applicant, and Councillor Dominic Boeck, adjacent Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

The Chairman asked what the acronym CPHOA represented and it was confirmed that this stood for Crookham Park Home Owners Association.

Mrs Jean Norman and Mrs Sheila Ellison in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Sheila Ellison stated that she had lived close to the Crookham Park since 1982. The Traveller’s Friend had always been an important part of Crookham Common.

·         There were already houses near to the site including some nice bungalows. These were lived in by both young families and people who had lived in the area for many years.

·         The area offered some excellent walks and a pub that was a great asset to the area.

·         The bus that served the area would continue to run as it took local children to the Hurst Community School.

·         Mrs Ellison could not see why Highways had raised an objection to the application as the site was easily accessible and offered good parking provision.

·         Mrs Norman expressed that she and her husband were in support of the application

·         The reduction to a two hourly bus service had adversely affected many within the community including disabled residents, meaning some were resorting to the use of taxi services.

·         The application included the provision of a shared electric car, which would be available to local residents through a car club scheme and would help resolve the impact of fewer buses to the area.

·         Crookham Common was a pleasant place to live and if approved plans would bring added security to the area. There would also be improvements made to the footpath close by, which had not been looked after adequately in the past.

Councillor Keith Chopping noted that Mrs Norman had said that there was a bus service that operated on a two hourly basis. Mrs Ellison reported that it was less frequent that this and felt that the car club aspect of the application would be extremely beneficial to other residents in the area, particularly those who were elderly.

Mr Duncan Crook in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The strategy for development was within a sustainable location.

·           The location was rural. He took a different view to the Planning Officers. The report referenced that the application was relevant to Core Strategy Policy C1 however, Mr Crook also felt that the application was relevant to ADPP6.

·           Mr Crook felt that the site was within a sustainable location because it was in a countryside setting. All sites were assessed against the sustainable transport criteria.

·           Policy C1 singled out Brimpton as a sustainable location. If Brimpton was considered to be sustainable then Mr Crook was of the view that the Traveller’s Friend site was sustainable too. 

·           The electric car and Car Club scheme would provide a sustainable source of transport and there were already electric charging points across West Berkshire.

·           The proposal sought to make improvements to the footpath that ran west from the sit along Crookham Common Road, linking it to a public footpath which ran along the western boundary of the mobile homes park.

·           There were many differences between the application in question to that which had been brought before Members of the Committee in 2015 for the same site. It had not included a car club scheme or improvements to the close by footpath.

·           Thatcham Town Council did not object to the proposal.

In considering the above application Councillor Richard Crumly referred to paragraph 6.6 of the Planning Officer’s report on affordable housing, which stated that 20% of the units should be provided as affordable housing. Mr Crook stated that if the application was refused then the suggested affordable housing provision would be added to the proposal and if the application was approved then this would be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor Alan Law noted that Mr Crook had referred to ADPP6 however, he disagreed that the application had any reference to this policy. Mr Crook reported that it was included within part of the Appeal Statement of Common Grounds and did not form part of the inspection report.

Councillor Graham Bridgman asked how important the live/work aspect of the application was. Mr Crook stated that this was very important. The site was in a good location and there was demand for such units. Superfast broad band was being rolled out across the district, which supported home working. Public consultation undertaken evidenced that that there were ample labour sources within the area. The site was within a sustainable location and the live/work element of the site would ensure fewer vehicle movements by residents.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he had not realised that he lived in a live/work unit. Before retirement Councillor Bridgman stated that he used to work from home however, now that he was retired he no longer used his home for this purpose. Councillor Bridgman asked what guarantee there was that the units would be used appropriately and that the working element would not cease to exist. In answering Councillor Bridgman’s question Mr Crook stated that it was possible that the work space could become vacant however, the occupier would be required to pay business rates as an incentive to use it for work purposes. Mr Crook added that a live/work unit was not the same as using a home as an office, as a quarter of the unit would be equipped for work purposes.

Councillor Lee Dillon asked if Mr Crook was aware of the longevity of a electric car club scheme. Mr Crook answered that the scheme would be secured by S106 money and he expected the scheme to continue for a long time. Mr Crook stated that the car share scheme had originated from public consultation. It was not economically viable for five dwellings however, the community would contribute on a hire basis.

Richard Crumly was of the view that the proposal would increase dependency on car usage as it would still generate movements for the family element of living. Mr Crook stated that although domestic car usage would not decrease, car usage in relation to work would do.

Councillor Dominic Boeck as adjacent Ward Member raised the following points:

·           He had called the item in and had done so with the interest of Brimpton in mind.

·           He was a Member for Aldermaston however, had lived in Brimpton in the past.

·           Many of his residents struggled to access facilities and therefore he was in support of any developer who wanted to help sustain local amenities such as the village shop.

·           He urged Members to approve the application.

The Chairman noted that part of Councillor Boeck’s reason for calling the item in was that it would be making use of previously developed land however, the report suggested that this was not the case. Councillor Boeck accepted that he might have been mistaken on this point.  

(Councillor Tony Linden joined the meeting at 8:16pm however, was not permitted to vote on the item)

Councillor Jason Collis in addressing the Committee, raise the following points:

·           Both he and his fellow Ward Member, Councillor Rob Denton-Powell supported the application.

·           The site in question was an odd part of the ward in that it was very rural.

·           It was becoming increasingly difficult to support development within rural areas.

·           If the site was considered as unsustainable then the whole community was as well.

·           The shop acted as a hub within the community.

·           He felt that the development acted as an infill.

·           The additional element of a car club scheme was a real step forward and was an innovative solution.

·           The live/work aspect of the development would help support the economy in the area.

The Chairman asked Planning Officer, David Pearson, to make a statement on sustainability. David Pearson explained that when Members identified settlements within settlements boundaries, they were identifying areas that they considered to be sustainable. Any areas outside of these boundaries were not considered to be sustainable. David Pearson added that Members needed to assess each application on its own merits. The Planning Officer’s view was that the location was not sustainable and this had been upheld by an inspector.

Councillor Law asked David Pearson to comment on the application’s relevance to Policy ADPP6. Planning Officer, Emma Nutchey, explained that the relevance of this policy was reliant upon the location of the site as it applied to the East Kennet Valley. The application site was too far west for ADPP6 to be relevant.

Councillor Keith Chopping queried if the provision of a car club scheme would deal with the non sustainable element of the site and David Pearson stated that although it was a nice aspect to the proposal it was peripheral to Members’ decision on the application.

Councillor Dillon raised a query about affordable housing and Emma Nutchey reiterated the fact that West Berkshire Planning Policy stated that this needed to apply to 20% of the site (the percentage of affordable housing depended on the number of units and ranged between 20% and 40%). Councillor Dillon queried if the application was delivered with affordable housing, if this would be a S106 Contribution rather than a plot on the site. Emma Nutchey stated that if a site was deemed to be unsustainable then a contribution would normally be agreed. Councillor Dillon asked if the application would be referenced up to the District Planning Committee if Members were minded to vote against Officer recommendation and David Pearson confirmed that this would be the case.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe had noted at the site visit that access to the pub would need to be completely altered. He queried if this would form part of the application. Emma Nutchey confirmed that this would involve negotiations between the developer and the pub. The entrance to the pub would not need to be closed however, the layout would need to be changed.

Councillor Metcalfe further queried when a site was not longer considered a Greenfield site, for example if it was covered in tarmac. Emma Nutchey reported that the criteria for a Greenfield site was not strictly about surface material.

Councillor Bridgman understood why Mr Crook had referenced ADPP6 and queried if its relevance should be considered by Members. David Pearson stated that Policy C1 was worded in a very strict manner. ADPP6 did not apply to site that was outside of a dwelling cluster and was set back from the road.

Councillor Bridgman recalled Members debating over a property in Padworth, where Members had also been confronted by Policy. These policies had been agreed as part of the Council’s Development Planning Document. He did not see the proposal as an infill development. The application failed to adhere to Policy C1.

Councillor Crumly disagreed with Councillor Bridgman as he felt the proposed development could be considered as an infill, which he felt was neat in design. He accepted views that had been raised about the countryside location however, he expressed his view that the proposal was novel and therefore would like to see Members support the application.

Further to Councillor Crumly’s comments, Councillor Law stated that the site was not considered to be an infill development by Planning Officers or the Planning Inspector. Councillor Law reiterated that it was not previously developed land or an in-fill development.

Councillor Law felt that a brave attempt at an application had been brought before Members. The developer had looked carefully at the site and consulted local people. Working from home was completely different to the concept of a live/work unit. Regarding sustainability, Councillor Law expressed the view that the site was not sustainable and this had been supported by the point raised by Ward Member Denton-Powell when he had stated that it was in a rural location.

Councillor Law added that he had been Portfolio Holder when the policies in question had been agreed and therefore he supported Officers’ view that the application did not comply with these policies. Councillor Law felt that if approved the decision would set a very dangerous precedent.

Councillor Quentin Webb recalled the Spire Ridge live/work unit along the A4 and concurred with Councillor Law and disagreed with the points made by Councillor Crumly. Councillor Webb proposed that Members refuse the application and this was seconded by Councillor Bridgman.

Councillor Metcalfe was concerned that there was a gap in the policy regarding live/work units. David Pearson confirmed that Officers had worked hard in seeking national guidance on live/work units and what was available was minimal. Historically applications had been for replacement dwellings and there were few examples of applications for empty Greenfield sites. The application was within the remit of what was deemed by Officers as acceptable.

Councillor Somner expressed his struggles with the application and concurred with Members comments regarding adhering to policy.

Councillor Dillon was sympathetic to the overall development. He respected that policies were in place however, felt that those policies were failing Members in this instance. He suggested that it was something the Planning Advisory Group (PAG) should look into. The Chairman suggested that Members’ speak to the Chairman of PAG.

Councillor Law sympathised with the views of Councillor Dillon however, stressed that policy should be adhered to. If Members felt that there was a strong enough reason for an exception to the policy, then no precedent would be set. In his opinion the application in question did not warrant exception to the policy. 

Councillor Marigold Jaques understood that the application was against policy however, Members had to take into consideration the 41 signatures of support.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal put forward by Councillor Webb, seconded by Councillor Bridgman. At the vote the Chairman used his casting vote and the motion to refuse planning permission was approved. Councillor Somner abstained from voting.

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

1.     The proposed development conflicts with the up-to-date housing supply policies of the statutory development plan in terms of the location and scale of new housing.  The proposed development of five live/work units would result in the siting of new residential development within the open countryside in a location that is poorly served by access to local services and amenities and would result in an increase in the use of the private motor vehicle. Accordingly, the application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP3, CS1 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2006-2026).

2.     The development fails to provide a planning obligation to deliver affordable housing. The application is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, Policy CS6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and the Planning Obligations SPD.