Agenda item

Proposal:	Outline application for erection of a single dwelling. Matters for consideration siting and scale other matters reserved.
Location:	Land Adjacent to 4 Croft Lane Newbury
Applicant:	Mr Barton
Recommendation:	The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to REFUSE the application.

 

There were no declarations of interest received.

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02533/OUTD in respect of an outline application for the erection of a single dwelling. Matters for consideration siting and scale other matters reserved on land adjacent to 4 Croft Lane, Newbury.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Stuart Atkinson and Ms Karen Barlow, objector, and Mr Tim Barton, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Derek Carnegie introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was unjustified. Officers on balance recommended that Committee refuse planning permission.

4.            The Chairman asked Officers to confirm if the road was adopted and to summarise the highways section of the report. Paul Goddard explained that the road was not adopted. His recommendation for refusal was based on the sub-standard sight lines from the access to the site. The speed survey measured cars as travelling at 18.7mph downhill (needing a 22.5m sight line, but being able to achieve only 14m) and 19.5mph uphill (needing a 24m sight line, but being able to achieve only 4-5m) past the property.

5.            The sight lines were sub-standard in both directions and he was concerned by the width of the road and it’s gradient. It was a private street, which was turned into a cul-de-sac by a locked gate at the end. This meant that it was a public highway, as the lane had had an unfettered access over many years, As a private street, the maintenance of the street was the responsibility of the frontages, however as the Highway Authority, the Council, had powers to enforce that the street was maintained adequately.

6.            Councillor Clive Hooker inquired who owned the junction, as it was included in the red line of the application. Paul Goddard explained that it was included to show that the applicant had right of access. Councillor Hooker continued by bringing the photograph on page 42 of the report to the Committees attention, to indicate that the splays of many of the existing houses were obstructed by shrubs.

7.            Councillor Paul Bryant asked if there was a detailed drawing of the street. Paul Goddard directed Members to the detailed drawing displayed in the room so as to understand the positioning of trees, lampposts and driveways.

8.            Mr Atkinson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

9.            He asked the Committee to refer to point 5.3 on page 36, and that the picture of the plan of the house to be displayed on the screens.

·      Mr Atkinson’s principle concern was the sight line from the property.

·      The new property would be overbearing.

·      There would be a detrimental impact to his retaining wall.

·      It was an unsafe access.

·      The different ground levels warranted closer scrutiny.

·      There would be additional load placed on the retaining wall, that it was not designed to accommodate. There had been no investigation of how the dwelling would impact on the retaining wall. The projecting part of the building was within 1.65m of the boundary and 0.26m of the retaining wall. The foundations would be further forward and would impact on the integrity of the wall, putting it at risk of serious damage.

·      The turning circle in the proposed site would be too small.

·      He requested that the siting of the unit be deferred to enable the applicant to carry out an appraisal to demonstrate that the retaining wall would not be impacted.

·      The access did not meet the required standard or even the relaxed standards.

·      If the siting were deferred, the applicant would also be able to investigate using the existing site access under the Grampian condition.

·      Ms Barlow was concerned about the visibility. The amount of vegetation in the summer meant that a car would have to come right out into the street to be able to turn. She felt that vans travelled quickly down the street, and would prefer a proper site that used the existing entrance.

10.         Councillor Anthony Pick asked how many houses were in the street. Mr Atkinson confirmed there were approximately 18 houses. Councillor Pick further inquired if Mr Atkinson’s objection was based on his experience of traffic in the area. Mr Atkinson replied that his objection was based on his being a practicing Highways Engineer and therefore, his professional judgement. In his opinion, the existing access would be safer.

11.         Councillor Pick noted that the condition of the shrubs was under the control of the residents. Mr Atkinson stated that he cut his shrubs back in the autumn.

12.         Councillor Jeff Beck asked, if there had been any incidences of collision in relation to the driveway opposite. Mr Atkinson could not recall any accidents over the last ten years. Ms Barlow noted that residents had erected a sign asking people to drive carefully. However, she was concerned about drivers visiting the road, rather than the usual residents.

13.         Councillor Paul Bryant inquired if the shrub was on the resident’s land or common ownership. Mr Atkinson explained that his house had been built in 1991, and the boundary to the front of the lane had been planted up. It was tradition that the frontages maintain the verges in front of their homes.

14.         Councillor Garth Simpson inquired if the Grampian condition would mean that Mr Atkinson was proposing to have a shared access between the parent and child property. Mr Atkinson agreed this was the case, and that the access would need to be widened slightly.

15.         Mr Barton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      The existing house had been owned by his father.

·      The central issue was access to the new property.

·      It was a private, no-through road.

·      The traffic survey revealed a morning peak of six vehicles per hour and an afternoon peak of nine vehicles per hour.

·      The sight lines could not be achieved, but he did not believe this made the access unsafe. There had been no significant incidents since 1965.

·      To move the access further up the road, would make it closer to the preserved tree. All the trees on the street had Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) placed upon them.

·      This was a small simple application on a small simple road, which was being recommended for refusal because of the access.

16.         Councillor Bryant asked who owned the hedge. Mr Barton observed that, technically, they are not owned by anyone and are maintained by convention, by the home owners.

17.         Councillor Simpson doubted whether the shared access would be safe, but due to the low numbers of vehicles using the street, he did not see an incremental danger in the proposed siting of the access.

18.         Councillor Pick concurred that the shared access would be closer to the tree and the public road and therefore, would be more dangerous than the proposed access. He further inquired if the turning circle would be sufficient, should there be more than one vehicle. Mr Barton confirmed that it complied with the standards and had been designed to do so.

19.         Councillor Adrian Edwards inquired as to how the traffic survey was carried out. Mr Barton explained the number of vehicles was counted digitally for a week, this figure was then averaged. Councillor Edwards was trying to establish if the vehicles would be those of residents or drivers who wouldn’t necessarily know the dangers. Mr Barton suggested that due to the nature of the road, it would probably be residents or regular delivery drivers.

20.         Councillor Lynne Doherty, as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      The application had been called-in, as she wanted the Committee to take a measured look at this unusual situation.

·      She understood the concerns about the splays and the trees blocking driver’s view.

·      She was concerned at the speeds revealed by the speed survey. She would have expected much lower speeds to have been registered. If these speeds had been registered at the top of the lane, with people turning off from the public highway, then perhaps some measures needed to be put in place.

·      This was a quiet, un-adopted, no-through road. The gate at the end made it difficult to turn around and therefore, the only reasons for vehicles to be there would be to make a delivery or visit the homes.

21.         Councillor Beck understood the reasons Councillor Doherty had called-in an application that would otherwise have been refused under delegated authority, due to the standard of the sight lines. He wondered if she had a view as to whether the application should be granted.

22.         Councillor Doherty noted that the house was in keeping, and that the applicant was not trying to over-develop the site. She had no problem with the design of the house. If the boundary was an issue, then that needed due consideration. She did not feel that the house was being squeezed into the plot, and would be happy to see a house there that complied with planning regulations.

23.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked the Planning Officer if the Highways Officer did not object, what the recommendation would be. Derek Carnegie confirmed that it would be to grant permission.

24.         Councillor Pick cogitated that the visibility to the north was 14m, but was only four to five metres to the south, due to the positioning of the hedge. He asked if the hedge was protected. Paul Goddard explained that the hedge was owned by Mr Atkinson, who regularly maintained it.

25.         Councillor Simpson enquired as to the minimum allowable splay. Paul Goddard explained that for a vehicle travelling at 19.5mph, there had to be a splay of 24m.

26.         Councillor Paul Hewer inquired if the Committee refused the application, and it went to appeal, what Officers thought the decision would be.

27.         Derek Carnegie reflected that he used to be able to predict the outcome of appeals, but he was less certain now. He advised that the decision would probably be over-turned on appeal.

28.         Councillor Beck asked if the Committee decided to approve this application, whether they would be setting a precedent for allowing an access that did not comply with regulations. Paul Goddard observed that the existing access points were also sub-standard, but were historic. His advice was that the Committee comply with the standards. He had concerns about the width and gradient of the road and therefore, would refuse the application.

29.         Councillor Simpson sought clarification on the width of the road. Paul Goddard confirmed that it was 3.5m wide.

30.         Councillor Hilary Cole observed that this was a difficult application and understood why it had been called-in. This Authority was keen to see development, and this site was within the settlement boundary. If there had been no highways issues, it would have been approved. The road was steep, but that was relative. She also understood that the other driveways were historic and the Committee needed to be looking from the present day. However, she was struggling to see how it would impact on the road. Councillor Hilary Cole proposed to decline officers’ recommendations and approve planning permission. Councillor Paul Bryant seconded the proposal.

31.         Councillor Adrian Edwards stated that the role of the Highways Authority was to make it safe to drive on the roads. Just because there had been no accidents, was no excuse for ignoring the advice of the Highways Officer. The Officer was the professional and the Committee should accept his recommendation.

32.         Councillor Beck observed that he had known this road for more than 50 years. He understood Councillor Edward’s point of view and that Paul Goddard had recommended refusal. However, there had been no road traffic incidents in the road. He felt that the application should be allowed on common sense terms.

33.         Councillor Pick reflected that there had not been an adequate explanation for why the shrubs could not be cut back fully and what affect this would have on the splay. Mr Atkinson’s retaining wall should be considered and he suggested that the applicant should deal with this to the satisfaction of the neighbour. He supported Councillor Cole’s proposal.

34.         Councillor Hooker commented that in regards to the splays and visibilities, he felt that these comments should be made to the Parish Council.

35.         Councillor Simpson observed that this was a cul-de-sac and there had been no accidents and therefore, on common sense grounds, he supported the proposal.

36.         Councillor Hilary Cole, in response to Councillor Edward’s comments, opined that the reason there was a planning committee was to determine difficult applications. In the course of this, they might disagree with Officers’ recommendations and did so knowing the risks.

37.         Councillor James Cole supported Councillor Hilary Cole’s proposal and felt that, having visited the site, Members should go against Officers’ recommendations and approve the application.

38.         Councillor Edwards responded that a normal planning application would not necessarily involve the Highways Officer. Members were making a decision on the safety of individuals and it was the Highway Officers job to protect people on the roads.

39.         Councillor Hilary Cole observed that this was a cul-de-sac with a limited number of properties. Her own house was on a blind bend. Part of the responsibility lay with the road users, and if people did not apply common sense then there was nothing the Committee could do about it.

40.         Councillor Howard Bairstow recognised the dilemma that the existing houses already had this problem and residents were aware of it. The application was for the second house in the road. He could see the danger, but people normally travelled slowly on narrow lanes. He was trying to balance the risks.

41.         The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Cole, as seconded by Councillor Bryant to decline officers’ recommendations and approve planning permission subject to conditions. At the vote the motion was passed. Councillors Drummond and Edwards voted against.

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

Conditions

Time

1.     The development to which this permission relates shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

Reserved Matters

2.     Details of the Access, External Appearance, and Landscaping (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission, and no building or other operations shall start on site until the Reserved Matters have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details and with the requirements of any conditions attached to any approved reserved matters application. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the reserved matters which have been given in the application hereby approved.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The application is not accompanied by sufficient details of the reserved matters to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to those matters and such consideration is required to ensure that the development is in accordance with the development plan.

Plans Approved

3.     The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with:

Site location plan J0003531-17-01b

Block Plan J0003531-17-02a

Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations (in respect of scale) J0003531/03/A

Associated Documents

Planning Statement (Carter Jonas) dated 8th September 2017)

Technical Note (Mode Transport Planning) dated September 2017

Arboricultural Survey, Impact Assessment and Protection Plan (Barton Hyett) dated 11th April 2017

All received with the application validated on 18th September 2017.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, policies ADPP1, ADPP2, CS 13, CS 14, and CS 18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Design 2006.

Materials

4.     No development of the dwelling shall commence until details of all external materials (brick, roof coverings, windows and doors) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should include a schedule with material samples made available on site if requested by the local planning authority. All materials incorporated in the work shall match the approved samples, unless alternative materials are first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that the materials are appropriate to the character of the area and adjacent Conservation Area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

Hours of Construction

5.     Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside the following hours:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of adjacent occupiers in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Construction method statement

6.     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).

Access construction

7.     No development shall commence until details of the new access into the site from Croft Lane have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (this can be part of the required reserved matters). Thereafter the access shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest 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).

Visibility splays before development

8.     No development shall take place until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 14.0 metres to the north 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 and Turning

9.     The dwelling shall not 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

10.  No development shall take place until details of the cycle parking and storage space have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The dwelling shall not be occupied until the cycle parking and storage space has been provided in accordance with the approved details and retained for this purpose at all times.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate and safe cycle storage space within the site.  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).

Carriageway condition surveys

11.  No development shall take place until a carriageway condition survey of Croft Lane including photographic record has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: In the interests of road safety and the continued maintenance of the private street.  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).

Landscape Scheme

12.  No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment.  The scheme shall ensure:

a)    Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.

b)    Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 - 2026.

Tree Protection

13.  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) named plan Tree Retention and Removal dated 11/04/17 (Barton Hyett). 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.

Tree Works

14.  The detailed schedule of tree works by Barton Hyett dated 11.04.17. including timing and phasing of operations shall be carried out in full and in accordance with the submitted report. 

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.

Means of Enclosure and Hard Surfaces

15.  No development or other operations shall commence on site until a scheme of fencing and other means of enclosure (if any) and any hard surfaces to be erected/constructed on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling shall not be occupied before the fencing and other means of enclosure and hard surfacing have been erected/constructed in accordance with the approved details. The approved  fencing or other means of enclosure and hard surfacing shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: The fencing and other means of enclosure and hard surfacing are essential elements in the detailed design of this development and the application is not accompanied by sufficient details to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to these matters. In the interests of the character of the area adjacent to the Conservation Area. In accordance with Policies  ADPP2,  CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Levels

16.  No development shall commence on site until details of floor levels in relation to existing and proposed ground levels and sections through the site, showing the relationship with adjoining/neighbouring properties; have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed building and the adjacent land and properties, in the interest of amenity and in accordance with Policies ADPP2, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Spoil

17.  No development shall commence on site until full details of how spoil arising from the development will be used and/or disposed of have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall:

a) Show where any spoil to remain on the site will be deposited,

b) Show the resultant ground levels for spoil deposited on the site (compared to existing ground levels),

c) Include measures to remove the spoil from the site.

d) Include a timescale for the spoil removal and associated works.

All spoil arising from the development shall be used and/or disposed of in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that any raising of ground levels on the site will not harm the character and amenity of the area. In accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

SuDS

18.  No development shall take place until details of surface water drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These details shall be informed by an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, and the results of this assessment shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority.  No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the approved surface water drainage works have been provided in accordance with the approved details.  Where a sustainable drainage system is to be provided, the submitted details shall:

(a)       provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; and

(b)       include a timetable for its implementation.

Note: Any paved areas shall be formed of permeable paving.

Reason:  The development must ensure that the design and locations of the SuDS provisions are adequate and maintainable and will provide adequate flood protection to this property and the surrounding area in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS14 and CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026

DC