Agenda item

(Councillor Clive Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member and had been involved in the application but confirmed that he would consider it 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 but would step down as Chairman for the item on order to address the Committee as Ward Member.)

(Councillor Paul Bryant, Vice-Chairman, in the Chair)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01564/FULD in respect of the erection of two semi-detached dwellings within the curtilage of The Coach, in Worlds End, Beedon.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Giles Rainy Brown and Peter Logie, objectors, and Chris Roberts, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Lydia Mather 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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers, on balance, recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Councillor Paul Bryant noted that no representative from the parish council was to address the Committee on the application and asked that his disappointment in their absence, on a high profile application within the community, be recorded.

5.    Giles Rainy Brown and Peter Logie in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Objectors concerns related to the size, safety and sustainability of the proposed development and it would be excessive to shoehorn two dwellings onto a small site.

·       The need for the dwellings was not clear and not stipulated in the Council’s site allocation policies.

·       The townhouse style of the development was out of keeping and would not contribute to the character of the area, a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       The majority of houses in the area had large front gardens and were set back from the road. The proposed parking spaces at the front of the dwellings would overhang the pavement by 40cm.

·       Health and safety issues would be caused such as large delivery vehicles and residential traffic being in conflict. The pub was also used as a pick up point for a local school bus.

·       A neighbouring property, the Old Stores, would suffer a loss of light.

·       The position of the oil tank in relation to residential properties would contravene guidance.

·       It was wrong that the application did not include the pub and the Committee should ensure the sustainability of that rural enterprise.

·       If the Committee were minded to approve the application, a condition should be applied to ensure the availability of all 17 of the pub’s car parking spaces throughout construction.

6.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked what the distance would be between the windows of the Old Stores and the proposed dwellings. Mr Rainy Brown estimated it would be a couple of metres.

7.    Councillor Bryant requested more information regarding the school pick-up. Mr Logie advised that parents dropped off children at the site and the school bus would pull up for the children to board.

8.    Councillor Bryant sought clarification regarding the assertion that vehicles would overhang the footway at the front of the proposed properties. Mr Logie advised that the spaces at the front would measure 4.4m when they were required to be 4.8m.

9.    Councillor Simpson asked whether the pub’s car parking spaces were regularly full. Mr Logie responded that at weekends the car park was often full and cars would park on the street.

10.Chris Roberts, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The capital gain from the sale of the properties would ensure the viability of a valued community public house, which was facing economic challenges despite being run well by the current tenants.

·         The applicant had volunteered to install a speed bump in the car park as a traffic calming measure and the pub garden would be re-provided.

·         A construction management plan would be used to ensure that any disruption would be minimal.

·         The proposal would not be detrimental to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Council’s policy required the properties to front the highway.

11.Councillor Jeff Beck requested more information on the beer garden. Mr Roberts advised that an area on the site currently not open to the public would be developed.

12.Councillor Beck asked how the residential parking spaces at the rear of the proposed dwellings would be allocated. Mr Roberts advised that the applicant would take the advice of the Highways Officer on how best to allocate the spaces. Regarding the spaces to the front, the footpath would be controlled by conditions.

13.Councillor Anthony Pick noted that Mr Roberts had stated the capital gain would support the business and asked how. Michael Butler responded at the Vice-Chairman’s request and clarified that there was no Section 106 agreement in place to stipulate that the capital gain was reinvested into the business. Planning permission was not personal so the disposal of the land value would be the landowner’s decision. The Committee was not in a position to control this.

14.Councillor Pick asked whether the land proposed for the new beer garden would be suitable for conversion. Mr Roberts advised that indicative drawings had been submitted to the case officer.

15.Councillor Pick further asked what plans there were to mitigate the risk of flooding. Mr Roberts advised that the residential gardens would help and permeable tarmac would be used in the car park.

16.Councillor James Cole asked for the agent’s view on the safety of the car park as there was a long straight stretch of road past the pub’s entrance. Mr Roberts confirmed that regard had been given to the perspective of the Highways Officer and additional safety measures had been volunteered.

17.Councillor Clive Hooker, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application had received over 50 objections which was unusual for a small development of two houses.

·         There was a concern that the proposed dwellings would be overdevelopment of the site and too close to the neighbouring property.

·         The re-provided pub garden was a welcome gesture but the development might impact the pub’s long-term viability.

·         There were safety concerns regarding the access.

·         There was nothing to guarantee that the capital gain would be reinvested in the pub. The community had already lost the nearby Langley Hall pub.

·         The proposed development would change the culture of the village.

18.Councillor Adrian Edwards asked for Councillor Hooker’s views on the location of the oil tank. Councillor Hooker responded that it would be an issue for building regulations, however it was likely that the developer would need to build foundations against the oil tank which might impact on the final width of the dwellings.

19.Councillor Edwards further asked about overlooking and the impact on the neighbouring property. Councillor Hooker responded that 2 metres outside the neighbour’s window a 5 metre wall would be constructed. While there would be no overlooking there would be a loss of light.

20.Turning to questions for officers, Councillor Virginia von Celsing asked for the Highways Officer’s view on the car parking spaces at the front of the proposed dwellings. Paul Goddard stated that the spaces would be 40cm short of the required 4.8m length. Officers had asked that the footpath was widened to 1.5m. To accommodate the parking spaces the applicant would need to set the houses back 40cm further from the road or remove the proposed porches. Paul Goddard recommended that if the Committee were minded to approve the application a condition could be applied to ensure the matter was rectified. To clarify a further query from Councillor von Celsing, Paul Goddard responded that should the house be set further back from the road, the garden size should be decreased in order to preserve the parking to the rear of the properties.

21.Councillor Bryant asked whether the application should return to the Committee for determination should the applicant need to amend the plans as discussed. Michael Butler advised that it could be agreed by officers as a non-material amendment.

22.Councillor von Celsing asked how the oil tank might affect the construction of the development. Lydia Mather advised that it could not be considered as a planning matter because separate legislation applied. If the applicant was unable to meet the requirements of that legislation the development might not proceed.

23.Councillor Pick requested information regarding the site density. Michael Butler advised that it would equate to 24 units per hectare which was considered acceptable by officers.

24.Councillor Pick queried the consultation with the Council’s drainage officer. Lydia Mather confirmed they were consulted and she had received no response.

25.Councillor Pick further queried how the conditions to mitigate the impact on the proposed dwellings of odours and road noise would be enforced. Lydia Mather highlighted that they had been recommended by Environmental Health officers and the pub was in the blue line of the development.

26.Councillor Hooker questioned whether the properties would be big enough to live in should they have to be reduced to accommodate the parking spaces at the front and to build foundations next to the current oil tank. Michael Butler responded that the dwellings would still meet best practice guidance even if their overall size was reduced by 10%.

27.Councillor Cole asked how the risks associated with the access and parking provision would be dealt with. Paul Goddard advised that it was unlikely that vehicles would achieve high speeds over 30m and suggested that if the Committee were minded to approve the application they could request a condition to introduce speed reducing features.

28.Councillor Simpson speculated that the properties, if approved, might be tenanted as houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) with several cars which could cause parking and safety issues. Michael Butler reminded Members that the possible future tenure of the dwellings was not a matter the Committee should take into consideration.

29.Councillor Paul Hewer enquired whether The Coach was on the register of community assets. Lydia Mather confirmed it was not.

30.In commencing the debate, Councillor Jeff Beck explained that he had been a member of the Western Area Planning Committee for a number of years and in his view there were too many elements of the application that were wrong. If it went ahead, the development could lead to the demise of the pub. He proposed that the Committee reject the Officer’s recommendation and so refuse planning permission. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Cole.

31.Councillor Pick stated he was at a dilemma because the agent had advised that the development would assist the viability of the pub but a smaller pub garden could have an adverse impact.

32.Councillor Edwards stated that he had been open minded until the site visit and had seen that there would be a negative impact on the neighbouring property and would be, in his view, overdevelopment of the site.

33.Councillor Cole told the Committee of a personal experience whereby he had been a passenger in a car travelling at low speeds which had unfortunately hit a child coming out of a pub. The child had survived however the accident had demonstrated that injury could still be caused at low speeds. As a result of that experience and the safety issues on the site Councillor Cole advised that he could not support the application.

34.Councillor Hewer expressed the view that although there might be a negative impact on the pub, a Planning Inspector was likely to overturn a refusal at appeal and so he reluctantly supported the application.

35.Councillor Hooker opined that a number of issues had come to light through the Committee’s discussion and this was inexcusable given the time the applicant had to submit the application.

36. Councillor Simpson stated that he was unable to make a decision without more information regarding the viability of the pub. Councillor Beck responded that the Committee were entitled to consider the impact on the pub because it was included in the red line of the development.

37.Councillor Bryant advised that he would find it difficult to agree to refusal because the landowner could easily sell the land and divorce the site from the pub. Councillor Hooker stated that the Committee was not confronted with that situation.

38.At the request of officers, Councillor Beck clarified that his reasons to refuse the application in planning terms should include overdevelopment of the site, concern about the oil tank, the design was not in-keeping with the area, flooding concerns had not been addressed, there would be a negative effect on visitors to the pub, sub-standard parking provision, loss of the beer garden, safety and the overall poor quality of development. Councillor Cole added that the overshadowing effect on the neighbour should also be included.

39.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Beck, as seconded by Councillor Cole, to reject officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

Reasons

The proposed dwellings are town house in design and as such fail to have regard to the rural building character of the more immediate surroundings or harmonise with them. The proposed dwellings would be cramped, being of substantial depth to fit within the site, out of character with the existing lower density surrounding development. As such the proposed dwellings are contrary to policies C1 and C3 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2006-2026, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Quality Design 2006, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

2. The proposed parking layout is sub-standard where the required 1.5 metre footway results in 2 parking spaces to the front of the proposed dwellings being less than the required 4.8 metres in length, resulting in parked cars being partly over the footway. It has not been adequately demonstrated how the 3 car parking spaces to the rear of the site would be used separately and without conflict between the parking spaces for the public house. As such the proposed layout of the site fails to provide an adequate parking design and layout, contrary to policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2006-2026.

3. The proposed access between the side elevation wall and the side elevation wall of the proposed dwelling, whilst wide enough at 4.6 metres to allow cars to pass, would not provide a separate pedestrian access and there would be poor visibility for drivers beyond these walls when entering and accessing the site. As such the proposed access fails to create a safe environment or give priority to pedestrians, contrary to policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

4. The site is located in an area with a history of flooding and insufficient information has been submitted on how the proposed development would not impact on the capacity of an area to store floodwater, flow of surface water, and appropriate flood risk mitigation through the implementation of sustainable drainage methods. As such the application fails to comply with policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

5. The proposed development involves the loss of the public house beer garden. The area of land to the rear of the public house, within the blue line of the application, has been identified as an area where the beer garden could be re-provided. The area is significantly smaller than the existing garden and no detailed plans have been submitted regarding the works required to provide a replacement beer garden. As such the development fails to provide for the ongoing amenity of visitors to the public house that is likely to result in a negative impact on the operation of the public house as community asset within a rural area, contrary to policies ADPP5 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Public Houses, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

6. The proposed dwellings are against the south boundary of the site in close proximity to the rear elevation of the neighbouring property. The neighbouring property has a ground floor habitable room with a single window towards this boundary. The proposed two storey dwelling on the boundary would result in an unacceptable level of overshadowing and would be overbearing on the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling, contrary to policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Design 2006, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.