Agenda item

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she voted against the outline planning application (15/03320/OUTMAJ). As she had pre-determined the decision on the application she would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter. Councillor Bale stated however, that she would still make a representation as Ward Member. Councillor Bale left the meeting at 6.40pm.)

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that the objectors, Mr J.G.F Dawson and his wife, were known to her. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she 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 17/01540/RESMAJ in respect of reserved matters following outline planning permission 15/03320/OUTMAJ.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Higgs, Parish Council representative, Mr J Dawson, objector, and Mr Douglas Bond, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr John Higgs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was concerned regarding the entrance to the site and queried why the visibility splay length of 43 metres was still being shown within the report. According to the outline application that was approved, visibility splays should be 63 metres and 72 metres in length.

·         There were no cycle tracks close to the site and therefore any reference to cycle tracks should be discarded. The Thames path could not be used as a cycle track as it was a footpath.

·         Mr Higgs disagreed that there was a regular two hourly bus service that served the area. There were buses at 11am, 1pm and 6pm and this could not be considered as a frequent service. The service also no longer served the Whitchurch Hill area.

·         Although the highway that was used to access the site had a 30mph speed limit, many vehicles travelled at 60mph and therefore visibility splays should be increased to 90metres.

·         The footpath from the site to the village was not clear from the plans. Pedestrians would have to cross the road by the church, which was considered to be far to narrow.

·         Originally Thames Water had stated that the sewage network would not be able to support the new development however, Thames Water now seemed to be satisfied with the application. Mr Higgs wanted to know what had changed in terms of the sewage system, which meant that it could now support the development.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked if the entrance to the site was used solely for the estate. Mr Higgs stated that the entrance had been used by Southern Electric over the years and also by a local farmer however, the farmer mainly used the tracks rather than travelling over the fields.

Mr J Dawson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had a civil engineering background, which included being the Chairman of an engineering consulting firm. He held fellowships in engineering institutions across the UK and other parts of the world. He had been president of the UK association of Consulting Engineers including a spell as chairman on the Professional Liability Committee.

·         There was an extensive history of sewer leakages within the area. Thames Water had said in the past that a six inch pipe had the capability under pressure to take the flow and Mr Dawson felt that this was true under modern conditions. In Pangbourne Hill however, there was a Victorian aged six inch pipe that was rough and uneven according the operatives to who had cleaned up spillages and blockages. Rubbish snagged on the joints and caused blockages, causing sewage to leak into close by houses and gardens.

·         The option to replace the sewage system was deemed impossible due to the depth of the system. It was also only ten feet away from special dwellings.

·         Revised transport statements failed to take into account the updated traffic census taken at the site entrance. This had showed a substantial increase in traffic movements above the outdated figures to about 2000 movements a day.

·         A significant number of vehicles travelled at over 60mph on a downhill slope (about one in 20 vehicles). Vehicles travelling at this speed required a distance of about 150 metres to stop.

·         The Government’s main manual signed at Minister level stated that urban rules should not apply in special circumstances and in Mr Dawson’s opinion this included Pangbourne Hill.

·         Mr Dawson considered the conditions used by the Council to be dangerous. A risk assessment was required as there had been accidents near to the site.

·         Mr Dawson pleaded that the Committee refused the application based on the reasons stated above.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to what the Committee could and could not decide upon that evening and read out paragraph 6.16.1 on page 45 of the report, which listed the areas that were not relevant to the current application. Areas including sewage infrastructure and highways were among the areas listed and Councillor Bridgeman asked Mr Dawson if he would accept that the points he had raised were areas that could not be considered by the Committee. Mr Dawson argued that sewage plans were due to be submitted in December 2017 and that plans that accompanied the report showed amendments to the site access. Therefore he felt that the points he had raised were relevant.

Councillor Alan Macro asked Mr Dawson how many of the 2000 daily traffic movement were travelling in excess of the speed limit and Mr Dawson confirmed that this was around 60.

Mr Douglas Bond in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           He suggested that Members view the aerial photo on page 13 of the plans.

·           The application supported the allocation of residential development in the district.

·           In principle, a residential development for up to 35 dwellings on the site had already been approved.

·           A number of the issues raised by objectors went beyond consideration of the current application as had been highlighted by Councillor Bridgman.

·           The application was for a high quality scheme and was in keeping with planning policy as it was a high quality development.

·           The proposal would not be prominent on the street scene and existing trees and vegetation would be retained on the site.

·           The proposal was visually pleasing and consisted of sweeping hills.

·           The proposal adhered to the Council’s housing mix policy, without having a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area.

·           The application was supported by good architectural design, with high quality landscaping, which was sympathetic to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·           The development would offer high quality open spaces, including a play area.

·           Regarding scale of the development, it would not overlook any existing dwellings. The scheme was in keeping with planning policy and the surrounding area.

Councillor Alan Law referred to the plans on page 13 of the plans document and asked for clarification on whether the affordable housing content was distributed across three sections. Mr Bond confirmed that this was correct.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked Mr Bond if he had any comments on the points raised by Mr Dawson. Mr Bond confirmed that many of the points raised by Mr Dawson had formed part of the outline application that had already been approved. He referred to Mr Bob Dray’s (Planning Officer) presentation. The orange area on the map highlighted on one of the slides of Mr Dray’s presentation showed the Pangbourne Hill frontage. This covered vehicle and pedestrian access, which had been approved. The application before Members was only concerned with the detailed design of the residential area. Sewage issues had been addressed at the outline stage. Thames Water had been consulted on the present application and had raised no comments.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he was aware of the landscaping proposals detailed on pages 38 and 39 of the Planning Officer’s report. He referred to paragraph 6.7.5, which detailed recommendations from the Tree Officer regarding the planting of tree species such as Beech, Lime and/or Oak at 10-12 standard size to ensure greatest chance of long-term establishment. Councillor Bridgman asked Mr Bond if he had any comments on what had been advised by the Tree Officer. Mr Bond confirmed that he had no issue with what the Tree Officer had recommended. There was plenty of space on site for the planting of trees, which were native to the area.

Councillor Bridgman moved on to paragraph 6.7.8, which stated that the Lead Local Flood Authority had identified that a number of trees were proposed to be planted in close proximity to proposed soakaways. Mr Bond confirmed that this would be addressed by a revised landscaping scheme.

Councillor Metcalfe felt that further soft landscaping was required to help screen the electrical sub-station. He suggested that a hedge could be placed around the perimeter. Mr Bond commented that this was within the scope of the application and could be addressed.

Councillor Pamela Bale, as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·         Councillor Bale acknowledged that the current application was for reserved matters only however, things had changed and therefore should be considered by Members.

·         Councillor Bale was pleased that the developer had worked closely with the Planning Department to revise the layout of the houses.

·         Councillor Bale queried if there would be permitted development restrictions placed on the houses.

·         The report gave great emphasis to the bus service however, there was no guarantee that this service would continue.

·         Members had approved the footpath as part of the previous application however, the traffic island and narrow pavement was considered to be unsafe.

·         Traffic lights had been installed as part of a similar development in Purley to ensure children could safely walk to school. The development at Pangbourne Hill would make it so children had to cross a busy road to get to school and therefore Councillor Bale felt this required further attention. 

·         Councillor Bale referred to the list of conditions on page 27 and in particular 17/02254/COND4 which concerned the approval of details reserved by conditions: 13 - Tree Protection, 21 – drainage and 22 – sustainable drainage of approved application 15/03320/OUTMAJ. Councillor Bale noted that the conditions were pending consideration by the 22^nd December 2017 and assumed that drainage in particular had not yet been resolved.

·         Councillor Bale stated that she had asked local people through her article in the Pangbourne Magazine, to be careful about what they put down the drain. She was concerned that the situation would get worse once the new development had been built.

·         Councillor Bale stated that there were solutions such as the installation of macerators within each dwelling or at the entrance to the site. This was an option that needed to be considered by the developer.

The Chairman asked Planning Officers if they were able to respond to comments raised. Mr Dray stated that visibility splays were addressed through the original planning permission. There had been a lot of debate on the provision of longer visibility splays than normal for the road speed limit, and 63.6 metres and 72 metres had been agreed by the Highways Authority. This area was outside of the consideration of the current planning application, which was for reserved matters only. Councillor Law acknowledged that this area had been settled however, queried if it was different to what had been agreed. Bob Dray stated that the conditions allowed for alternative distances to be agreed pursuant to conditions, but that the now approved splays were as previously agreed. Highways Officer, Gareth Dowding added that a road safety audit had been carried out along with several checks and the distances of 63.6 and 72 metres had been agreed as adequate.

Mr Dray referred to the following points that had been raised by the Parish Council:

·         Highways works – it had been a condition within the outline planning report that the footway should be provided.

·         Drainage – this had been assessed as part of the outline application. Several letters had been sent to Thames Water asking them to review the application and no objections had been raised.

·         A macerator could be suggested to the developer as part of the assessment of planning conditions; however, it did fall outside the remit of the reserved matters application.

·         Screening of the electrical substation – this seemed a reasonable suggestion as there was space for additional soft landscaping and the applicant had raised no particular concern about implementing this.

Councillor Emma Webster referred to Mr Dray’s last point about landscaping around the electrical sub-station and asked if a condition could be added for additional trees in this area. Bob Dray stated that if Members felt this was essential then it could be stipulated within conditions.

Councillor Bridgman asked for clarification regarding permitted development rights, which were detailed on page 45 of the report. Mr Dray reported that Class B permitted development rights could not be applied in the AONB and therefore there would be no permitted development rights for such roof alterations on the site.

Councillor Macro referred to the reference on garden sizes on page 42 of the report. It stated within the report that the size of the gardens belonging to affordable homes were smaller and therefore Councillor Macro asked for confirmation that the gardens met with the SPD. Mr Dray confirmed that some gardens were smaller but all were judged to comply with the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Councillor Chopping noted that Councillor Bale had made a reference to traffic lights or a form of crossing to help pedestrians to cross the road safely. Mr Dray stated that highway plans for the site had already been approved as part of the outline application however, West Berkshire Council was the Highways Authority for the area and therefore there were now other ways Members could make a request for such a facility outside of the planning process.

Councillor Law asked who would be responsible if a sewage leak was to occur at the bottom of Pangbourne Hill following development of the site and Mr Pearson confirmed that Thames Water would be responsible.

Councillor Law stated that there was a lot about the application that he liked including the access, scale and affordable housing content. He felt that the proposal to screen the electrical sub-station was a good idea. Councillor Law declared that on this basis he would be minded to support a proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Webster stated that she was happy with the level of detail contained within the report and would support approval of the application. She referred to paragraphs 6.7.5 and 6.7.8 concerning screening and asked if these were best imposed using conditions.

Mr Bob Dray stated Members were within their rights to stipulate on issues around screening. It was felt that condition 11 could be amended to this affect.

Councillor Webster proposed that Members accept the Officer recommendation to approve the reserved matters application subject to the following points being added to conditions:

-       Full landscaping to all sides of the electrical sub-station.

-       The planting of tree species such as Beech, Lime and/or Oak to be planted along the access road and LEAP, as 10-12 standard size to ensure greatest chance of long-term establishment.

-       The re-location of a number of trees that were planned to be planted in close proximity to proposed soakaways.

-       Additional low level screening to the rear of plots 10 and 11.

Councillor Law seconded this proposal. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal put forward by Councillor Webster and seconded by Councillor Law. At the vote the motion to grant planning permission was approved.

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

Conditions