Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03334/FULD in respect of the demolition of outbuildings and erection of 1 x two bedroom, 2 x three bedroom dwellings and associated works.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Ruth Cottingham, Parish Council representative, and Andrew Bunyan, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Cottinghan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

The Parish Council’s main concern was parking on the site. It was not felt that the two sets of three parking places would be of great benefit due to the tandem design.

The Parish Council was of the view that tandem parking would make the parking situation worse and would lead to further parking long the B4009, where there was a pinch point.

Ms Cottingham had anecdotal evidence that pedestrians had nearly been involved in accidents involving HGVs and buses using the road.

It was not felt that the application was in keeping with the 2013 parking policy, which required adequate parking in an area where public transport links were very poor.

The Parish Council did welcome the demolition of the outbuildings however, it was felt the proposal for the front of the site would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

If the Committee were minded to approve the application, the Parish Council hoped that some CIL money could be allocated to improving road safety in Hermitage.

The flats opposite the site, had white lines on the road in front of the pavement and it was hoped that the same could be done outside of the application site.

If was unknown if the developer had submitted any clear plans to ensure road safety during the time of construction..

Mr Bunyan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The build density proposed for the site was too high. If the two bedroomed house was removed from the proposal, it would allow additional site space for parking.

·         The proposal would have a negative impact on the street scene.

·         Mr Bunyan was not aware of a construction plan to show how development would take place without  impacting upon the road.

·         There was concern that development could stretch to the wooded area surrounding the site.

·         The proposed access was on a pinch point in the B4009.

·         Mr Bunyan noted that the Planning Officer had commented that the former butchers on the site would have caused an increase in traffic to the area. He disagreed with this as the butchers had been largely a commercial business that provided delivery. There was only ever an increase in traffic on a Saturday morning.

·         The access was dangerous for residents leaving the application site. A number of Members had needed to be assisted when leaving the site after the site visit.

·         The two bedroom house would alter the street scene and would be visually overcrowded.

·         The parking proposed was completely impractical in Mr Bunyan’s view  and would require those using it to reverse out onto the B4009.

·         The Planning Officers had commented that there were numerous infill developments close by however, Mr Bunyan was not aware of any similar to that proposed and was concerned it would set a precedent.

·         Mr Bunyan felt that the density of development needed to be kept within reasonable limits, of which the application in questioned exceeded.

·         Mr Bunyan felt that the developer had a disregard to wildlife and would not hesitate to develop further into the wooded area on the edge of the site, in the future.

Councillor Pamela Bale drew Mr Bunyan’s attention to the Construction Method Statement and Mr Bunyan’s thanked Councillor Bale for highlighting this.

Councillor Quentin Webb as Ward Member raised the following points:

There were other infill developments close by however, these had been developed in a way that complimented the area and where visibility was good.

Councillor Webb felt that the property proposed for the front of the site was out of keeping with the area.

Councillor Webb also agreed with concerns that had been raised about the tandem parking. This would not resolve difficulties when turning whilst on the site and would make it particularly difficult when entering or exiting the site.

There had been a number of objections raised and this was also reflected in the lack of support for the site.

Councillor Webb was not adverse to the plans for the back of the site and reiterated his concern about the house proposed for the front of the site where visibility was particularly poor.

The Chairman, as joint Ward Member, stated that he had nothing to add to the points raised by Councillor Webb and invited Members to ask any questions.

Councillor Bale agreed with concerns raised about density and asked if Officers had any figures on this matter. David Pearson asked Members to note the space between the existing dwelling and felt that it was fairly consistent with the proposal and the site to the north. Councillor Bale felt that in this instance the density was causing the car parking issues. David Pearson stated that the parking proposed was in line with West Berkshire Council’s (WBC) Parking Policy and therefore refusal of the application based on the parking would be difficult to defend at appeal.

Gareth Dowding concurred that the parking proposed complied with parking policy and WBC could not dictate to developers how their potential purchasers should manoeuvre in and out of parking spaces.

Councillor Lee Dillon asked if parking could be improved on the site and Gareth Dowding reported that the developer had already made improvements.

Councillor Richard Crumly asked if the left side of the tandem parking was for one property and the right side for the other and Gareth Dowding confirmed that this was correct.

Councillor Crumly referred to the application for Sarnia and asked if there was any information available on the design and if the two sites complimented each other. Bob Dray presented the plans for the adjacent site to the committee and Councillor Crumly reiterated that the two sites should complement each other.

Regarding density, David Pearson reported they considered 30 or less dwellings per hectare to be low density.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe referred to the access to the site. Gareth Dowding confirmed that it was narrow however, it was possible for two cars to pass. Councillor Metcalfe further questioned about reference made to tree protection on the site and asked what the trees were being protected from and whether this would be removed as it was unsightly.  David Pearson assumed this protection was for the construction phase. Bob Dray stated that he would check the conditions regarding the tree protection however, it would be possible as part of the Construction Method Statement to ensure it was removed.

Councillor Marigold Jaques referred to the Officers recommendation for approval and stated that she understood why this was the case, as the application met all criteria. However, Councillor Jaques felt that common sense needed to be applied when considering the tandem parking and the pinch point in the road. Councillor Jaques had no issue with the proposed buildings that would be set back from the road. Councillor Jaques felt that the site access would be dangerous as a result of the dwellings proposed to the front of the site, which was also not in keeping with that proposed at Sarnia.

Councillor Crumly echoed the concerns raised by Councillor Jaques and expressed his aversion to the proposal and his trepidation to the tandem parking, which could cause parking issues to spill out on to the B4009.

Councillor Crumly stated that he had felt comfortable when leaving the site with the sight lines and stated that similar issues could be found in old towns and villages across the district and therefore any reasons to refuse the application based on this point would not stand up at appeal. The site was derelict and was within the settlement boundary. Based on these points Councillor Crumly reluctantly supported the Officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor Metcalfe stated that his views were similar to that of Councillor Crumly’s. He was concerned about the reference made to HGVs mounting the kerb and asked if a bollard could be placed at the location in question. Gareth Dowding stated that the erections of a bollard had created issues further up the road, as it had caused the footpath to be particularly narrow. Councillor Metcalfe expressed his dislike for the proposal however struggled to see how Members could object as it was in-keeping with planning policy.

Councillor Webb stated that he was concerned about the cramped nature of the front of the proposal, which caused difficulties with splays and caused a hazard. Based on this reason Councillor Webb proposed that Member refuse planning permission and this was seconded by Councillor Bale.

Gareth Dowding stressed that the vision splays complied with standards. Councillor Webb stated that his concerns were mainly with regards to the impact on the street scene.

Councillor Richard Somner wondered how the decision would sit at appeal if Members were minded to overturn Officer’s recommendation, as the proposal met all the relevant criteria. Councillor Somner stated that he could not disagree with any of the concerns raised by Members.

David Pearson urged Members not to refuse the application on Highways grounds. If Members were concerned about the appearance and impact upon the street scene then, although he might not agree, it could be defended at appeal.

Councillor Dillon commented that if an appeal was heard and Members reasons for refusal were rejected then they would still be left with the parking issues and he asked if Officers could work with the developer to rectify the concerns. David Pearson stated that it would be difficult for Officers to recommend that the developer change their plans as Highways Officers had no objections. Gareth Dowding stated that tandem parking was not ideal however, there was more parking on the site than what was suggested by one place.

The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Webb and seconded by Councillor Bale. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

The proposed narrow 2 storey dwelling located at the front of the site (identified as plot 1 on the submitted drawings) would appear contrived and out of keeping with the established character of the street scene when viewed from vantage points along the B4009 High Street that runs to the south of the site. Due to its cramped appearance, at odds with the more generous and well-spaced frontages presented on nearby plots, the proposed dwelling would result in an unacceptable negative visual impact on the established street scene that would be contrary to the established form and pattern of development. Accordingly the proposed works would be contrary to paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) which requires development to always seeks to secure a high quality design and Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 which require development to demonstrate a high quality and sustainable design that respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area, to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and sense of place and to give particular regard to the sensitivity of the area to change and ensuring that new development is appropriate in terms of location, scale and design in the context of the existing settlement form, pattern and character.