Agenda item

(Councillor Keith Chopping declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that a supporter, Mrs Hornblow, was known to him . 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 Quentin Webb declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had used P and R Motors, which was owned by the applicant. 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(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/02012/FULD in respect of the erection of a replacement dwelling and 4no. Dwellings and associated works; demolition of Class B buildings and extinguishment of lawful plant storage and distribution operations; removal of hard standing.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Deirdre Cuthbert and Mrs Hornblow, supporters and Mr Mark Leedale, agent, addressed the Committee on this application

Mrs Deirdre Cuthbert and Mrs Hornblow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs Cuthbert explained that Maidenhatch was a residential area near to the site location and was home to 23 families.

·         Since early on in the millennium, residents had fought to oppose industrial use of the site. HGVs and plant vehicles used the site and they caused traffic chaos in the area.

·         Local residents of Maidenhatch were keen to see current structures replaced by suitable housing which would be more in keeping with the area.

·         12 cars were already parked within the garage of the house on the site. Therefore if there were two to three cars for each of the five dwellings proposed, there would be little difference in traffic movements. There would however, be no HGV movements from the site if the application was approved.

·         Local residents fully supported the scaled down proposal for the site, which would retain the local distinctiveness.

·         Pangbourne and Tidmarsh needed more housing and this did not necessarily need to fall into the affordable homes category.

·         In summary Mrs Cuthbert compared the application to the current site:

-       Highways: there would be the same amount of cars entering and exiting the site however, there would be no HGV movements.

-       Noise levels: the noise level from five houses would not be as high as that generated from HGVs. Noise was often encountered during the early hours of the morning.

-       Odour: the unpleasant odour from the cleaning of site portaloos and those being transported to and from the site would be resolved if the application was approved.

-       Appearance: the proposal was aesthetically pleasing compared to the current appearance of the site.

·         Residents were concerned that if the application was not approved then the site would be sold with industrial usage rights.

·         Mrs Hornblow described a scenario to Members of the Committee. She described problems relating to noise and vehicle movements emanating from the site and non-planning related issues regarding alleged anti –social behaviour by users of the site.

·         Mrs Hornblow stated that these problems would continue coninue if the site continued to be used for plant haulage.

·         Mrs Hornblow stated that she had supported the application considered by the Committee in December 2016, which had subsequently been refused permission.

Councillor Alan Macro asked Mrs Cuthbert and Mrs Hornblow if they had ever reported the noise levels to the Council’s Environmental Health Services. Mrs Cuthbert responded that they had chosen not to report the issue as they felt the complaint would not acted upon.

Mr Mark Leedale in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Planning Officers had undertaken an appraisal of the site and were recommending the application was refused.

·                    Mr Leedale felt that the Planning Officer’s report was thorough.

·                    Mr Leedale stated that his difficulties with the report regarded the impacts summarised under the issues for consideration, particularly the impact it would have on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·                    The plant operations taking place on the site were referred to within the report as ‘low key’ however, Mr Leedale did not feel that this was the case.

·                    Not enough account had been taken of the lawful use of the site and its negative impact on the surrounding area and AONB.

·                    Not enough weight had been given to planning policies and government statements on the need to provide more houses.

·                    The report also referred to ‘planning balance’ on its list of considerations. Mr Leedale stated that Members needed to consider planning policy as well as the lawfulness of what the site was being used for.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked the applicant if an affordable housing contribution and CIL payment would be made. On hearing this was the case he stated that he felt that the affordable housing contribution was very generous.

Councillor Richard Crumly noted that a similar application was refused by the Committee in December 2016 and questioned how the current application differed. Mr Leedale stated that the units closest to Tidmarsh Lane had been reduced in size.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points. He firstly read out a statement on behalf of the Parish Council:

·         Given the history of the site with the Certificates of Lawfulness and Enforcements Orders, the Parish Council had no hesitation in supporting the residents of adjoining properties and the developer in putting forward the application.

·         The Parish Council felt that the case for recommending approval was  irrefutable on the basis of the current policies and material considerations.

·         The report concluded the adverse impact on the AONB was greater from five houses than from an industrial site, capable of expansion constrained only by the conditions of the CERTE.

·         Residents living next to the site, would have to continue with the uncertainly of how the site might be used if the application was refused.

·         The Parish Council urged the Committee to view policies as guidelines and listen to the wishes of the residents and of the Parish Council.

Councillor Metcalfe then made the following points as Ward Member:

·         Councillor Metcalfe stated that some applications fell outside of the ‘mould’.

·         Since the previous application the plans had been re-assessed to  reduce the size of the  replacement dwelling and provide one less additional dwelling.

·         Councillor Metcalfe felt that the proposal would have a lesser impact upon residents and the AONB than that currently on the site.

·         The report was concerned about the increase in cars using the narrow lane however, this was already being used by large HGVs with loos on board.

·         The financial gain for the affordable housing contribution and CIL payment would be  of great benefit to the local area.

·         Officers worked hard to implement planning policy and were correct in their recommendation to refuse planning permission on this basis. However Members had visited the site and heard representations and based on this should be minded to approve the application.

Councillor Pamela Bale asked if all the uses of the site had been approved or if the Council should be considering enforcement action.

Councillor Metcalfe reported that anti-social behaviour had been reported on the site and both the Parish Council and local residents would agree that the Certificates of Lawfulness should never have been given and that enforcement action was needed.

Councillor Tony Linden stated that if planning permission was granted it was not definite that it would be acted upon. Councillor Metcalfe responded that there was no urgency to develop the site if permission was granted however, if it was not granted then industrial use could continue, which would mean further issues for the neighbours.

The Chairman confirmed that there were no further questions for the Ward Member and therefore Members could now pose questions to the Planning Officers.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked if there was anything contained within planning policy for the scenario being faced by Members. The application was contrary to policy however, discretion was required due to unsuitable use of the site. David Pearson  stated that there was nothing specific contained within planning policy relating to this scenario. Members needed to weigh up the material considerations.  It was worth Members noting that there were a large  number of similar sites across the district, including four sizeable sites within 0.5 miles of the site one of which directly adjoined it to the east,  and approval of the application would result in an unfortunate precedent being set. There was no evidence to suggest that there were non conforming uses taking place on the site as no recent allegations had been submitted to the planning department.

Councillor Chopping asked if the application would be referred up to the District Planning Committee if approved and Mr Pearson  confirmed that this would be the case.

Councillor Crumly noted that the report referred to visibility splays. He asked how acceptable the plans were in terms of highways and what visibility would be like leaving the site if permission was granted. Gareth Dowding reported that although the speed limit was 60mph, speeds were lower than this on the site and the sight lines complied with this.

Councillor Emma Webster asked Officers for their definition of ‘setting’ according to the National Planning Policy Framework. Mr Pearson stated that  an assessment of setting largely depended on the particular features  of a site and its surrounding area and any of the Members who attended the site visit would have had a clear idea of  its setting, which was mainly a woodland and  countryside setting.

There were no further questions for Officers and therefore the meeting was opened up for debate. Councillor Crumly was concerned that if the application was approved it would set a precedent for other similar sites in the district and close by. A similar application in December 2016 had been refused and Councillor Crumly did not feel that the current application was dissimilar as it did not overcome the policy issues. Councillor Crumly was concerned that if the application was approved residents would have to pull their wheelie bins up to the highway, which was up to 150 metres. Councillor Crumly felt that the application was opposed to policy and Members should be acting upon advice given by Officers and therefore he proposed that Members accept the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission. Councillor Linden seconded Councillor Crumly’s proposal.

Councillor Webster stated that she was struggling with the application because as the agent had mentioned, there could be exceptions to policy. Councillor Webster also felt that the application would improve the immediate setting when compared to the site currently. Local residents had attended the Committee to express their support for the application and this needed to taken into consideration.

Mr Pearson stated that if a site was unsightly  the development should not be viewed as a resolution and he quoted section 215 of the Planning Act regarding power to serve notices to ensure action was taken to remedy the  appearance of a piece of land. Mr Pearson  reminded Members that planning policy encouraged the retention of businesses in rural areas. The building on the site had a Certificate of Lawfulness for a mixture of uses besides haulage that had not caused any nuisance.

Councillor Linden expressed his concern for setting a precedent by approving the application and this was why he had seconded Councillor Crumly’s proposal.

Councillor Alan Macro felt that Members should not be swayed by CIL and affordable housing contributions. Both factors were meant to mitigate an application and were not a reason to grant approval. Councillor Macro had noted at the time of the site visit that there were many similar sites in the immediate area.

Councillor Marigold Jaques concurred with the points made by Councillor Webster however, agreed that that policies were put in place for a reason. Councillor Jaques was aware that other similar applications had recently been refused.

Councillor Bale felt that the Officer recommendation required Members’ support however she urged that action should be taken against unlawful activity taking place on the site.

Councillor Quentin Webb sympathised with Councillor Metcalfe’s reasons for supporting the application however, struggled to see how the application adhered to planning policy in any way. Areas needed to be protected for the future and therefore Councillor Webb stated that he reluctantly supported the Officer recommendation.

Councillor Richard Somner stated that he struggled with points made within the report regarding the impact on the AONB when the site as it currently stood was unsightly. He felt that Members had a responsibility to assess exceptionality to planning policy. Officers worked hard to put policies in place and these would ensure that no precedent was set. Councillor Somner therefore confirmed that he would not support a motion to approve the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal put forward by Councillor Crumly, seconded by Councillor Linden. At the vote the motion to refuse planning permission was approved.

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

1. The application site is an isolated and sensitive location within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and outside of any defined settlement boundary.  The proposals to demolish the commercial buildings and remove hardstanding on land south of Green Gables and erect four dwellings are not supported by planning policy, and there is no presumption in favour of development in such locations.  The redevelopment of the site is not an exception to the policies restricting housing development in rural areas in general and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in particular, as defined by paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), West Berkshire Core Strategy Policies ADPP1 and ADPP5, and West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document Policy C1. 
2. The application site is an isolated and sensitive location within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and outside of any defined settlement boundary.  The site contains an existing residential dwelling and buildings and land for commercial purposes, and lies amongst open fields to the south of Tidmarsh Lane. 

The proposed works to demolish the commercial buildings on the section of the site south of the existing dwelling Green Gables and erect four dwellings would have a demonstrably greater and more harmful  and intrusive appearance in the landscape,  on the character of the area and AONB than the existing buildings.  The existing commercial buildings are low in profile and modest in size and the plant hire use is intermittent in nature and restricted by the terms of the Certificate of Lawfulness.  By contrast the dwellings are large and suburban in appearance and layout, and the proposal would lead to the domestication of the appearance of the land in the daytime and increased light pollution at night.  The imposition of the houses of an urban form and layout within the open landscape would not be appropriate development, over and above the existing built form on land behind Green Gables.

The proposed scheme would therefore be contrary to the Core Planning Principles set out at Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) which states that development must always seek to secure a high quality of design and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. It would further be contrary to the requirements of Policy C3 of the West Berkshire Site Allocations Development Plan Document due to the impact of the design on the character of the area. It would also be contrary to the requirements of Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012, which require that new development must demonstrate a high quality of sustainable design that respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area, and that new development is appropriate in terms of location, scale and design in the context of the existing settlement form, pattern and character.  Furthermore due to their significantly increased visual impact the proposed new dwellings would fail to either conserve or enhance the special landscape qualities of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore the proposed development is contrary to the requirements of Policy ADPP5 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) and of paragraphs 109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

3. The application site consists of an existing dwelling and garden and an extended area to the south containing buildings and open land for commercial purposes covered by two certificates of lawful use.  The site lies amongst open fields to the south of Tidmarsh Lane and lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The proposed works are to demolish the dwelling and buildings on site and erect a total of five dwellings.  The application is considered to fail to comply with the three dimensions to sustainable development as set out in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Whilst the proposal might generate a short term economic benefit during the construction, its overall economic impact would be negative due to the displacement of the businesses currently operating from the site.  The proposal supports the social role by providing housing but it is negated by its location being remote from accessible local services and the failure of the scheme to provide a high quality built environment.  The site at Green Gables is located outside of any defined settlement boundary, and in a relatively isolated position away from urban areas, rural service centres and service villages.  The site is not readily accessible by public transport, and Tidmarsh Lane is not attractive for future residents to walk or cycle due to the lack of footway and the narrow and winding nature of the road.

As set out in reason for refusal no. 2. the proposal is considered to have a significantly negative impact on the character and appearance of the local area and to fail to conserve and enhance the special landscape qualities of the AONB.  Accordingly it fails to comply with the environmental role of sustainable development by damaging rather than protecting or enhancing the natural environment.

4. 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 West Berkshire Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.