Agenda item

Proposal:	Approval of reserved matters application following outline application 16/01685/OUTMAJ for 28 dwellings.  Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.
Location:	Land Adjacent To Primrose Croft, Reading Road, Burghfield Common
Applicant:	Crest Nicholson South
Recommendation:	The Head of Development and Planning be authorise to GRANT approval of reserved matters subject to conditions

 

,(Councillor Royce Longton declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the manager of The Hollies Nursing Home was his next door neighbour. 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.)

(All Members had been lobbied by the applicant for Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that they would consider the application with an open mind. As their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/00772/RESMAJ in respect of a reserved matters application following approval of the outline application 16/0168/OUTMAJ for 28 dwellings. Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ian Morrin and Ms Andrea Hales, Parish Council representatives, Dr Gail Johnston and Mr Ben Tait, objectors, Mr Alastair Pott and Ms Michelle Quan, applicant/agent, and Councillor Graham Bridgman (Ward Member) addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Representation

Mr Morrin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    This was an unpopular development in Burghfield due to the serious impact it would have upon the health of residents living at the Hollies Nursing Home.

·                    The housing density of 30 dwellings per hectare was not sympathetic and was out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

·                    The affordable housing proposed should be distributed across the site, in line with West Berkshire Council’s policy, rather than being clustered together.

·                    The buffers between the site and the Hollies needed to be enhanced to go beyond the minimum requirement.

·                    The proposal conflicted with the Burghfield Parish Design Statement.

·                    Pedestrian safety needed to be ensured. The public footpath on Reading Road would be on the opposite side from the development with no form of crossing facility.

·                    A car park layout plan needed to be submitted.

·                    Only one point of access was proposed to the site, this was a concern for emergency vehicle access.

Ms Hales in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Density was a concern as this created a close boundary with the Hollies.

·                    There was no agreement in place for the maintenance of the buffers.

·                    The proposal had received approximately 50 objections. The noise impact created by the development of and occupation of the site would have a serious long term impact upon the health and wellbeing of residents of the Hollies, in particular to their mental health. The exposure to constant noise would result in sleep deprivation and depression. All the windows of the Hollies were single glazed.

·                    Many Hollies’ residents suffered from dementia and it would be difficult for them to understand and cope with the close proximity of the development and the noise it would generate. Ms Hales urged the Committee to consider how they would view this application if they had a relative living at the Hollies.

·                    Construction equipment and vehicles would be stored to the rear of the nursing home which was another concern.

Member Questions to the Parish

Councillor Graham Pask sought to understand the car parking concern when provision was allocated for each dwelling. Mr Morrin explained that the Burghfield Parish Design Statement did not allow for on street car parking in front of houses. It was the view of the Parish Council that the number of cars would exceed the parking provision and this would result in on street car parking.

In response to questions from Councillor Alan Macro, Ms Hales confirmed that the concern of noise pollution applied to both the construction phase and once the development was completed. When considering this was a reserved matters application, Ms Hales reiterated that the proposed density was of concern. This would increase noise and was not in keeping with local housing.

Objector Representation

Dr Johnston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    There was a need to conduct an extensive Phase One Habitat Survey on the site. There was no evidence that this had been undertaken. The ecologist employed by the applicant had relied upon a basic four year old survey which was redundant and an up to date and detailed habitat survey was needed.

·                    The Council’s Ecologist had commented that additional biodiversity enhancements were needed.

·                    No buffer was proposed between the site and the ancient woodland. This was needed, if the application was approved, to mitigate the significant impact on the ancient woodland from the development.

Mr Tait in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He was addressing the Committee on behalf of the Hollies. Members of staff were very disappointed with the proposal and its recommendation for approval. It had been their expectation that West Berkshire Council would do more to protect residents. The proposal, if implemented, would have a serious impact on residents’ health and privacy.

·                    The residents deserved the highest degree of privacy. However, the distance between the Hollies and the development only just adhered to the required separation distance.

·                    This need for privacy was most apparent on the upper floors where residents received the majority of their care, including palliative care. However, there would be no screening for many years before planting would have grown to the required height. Once grown it would block natural light received by the Hollies.

·                    If the application was approved, then more needed to be done to enhance the buffers. The distance between the Hollies and the proposed dwellings needed to be increased in order to adhere to the government guidance on such distances in low density housing areas. The planning report stated that West Berkshire Council had no grounds on which to seek a greater separation distance, but Mr Tait questioned this by making reference to a previous appeal decision for the site in 2011 when the Appeal Inspector disagreed with West Berkshire Council’s view on this point and felt that more should be done to protect the amenity of the Hollies. Mr Tait asked why this previous refusal reason was no longer considered an issue.

·                    There would be no connection between this site and the rest of the village, and this was prevented by land ownership issues. There was no proposal to extend or widen the existing pathway to enable access to the village.

Member Questions to the Objectors

No questions were put to the objectors. Councillor Alan Law commented that the queries raised in the presentation would be put to officers for clarification later in the meeting.

Applicant/Agent Representation

Ms Quan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The site was allocated for housing development in the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD).

·                    Outline planning permission for 28 dwellings was granted in October 2018. This permission included approval of the access and a Section 106 agreement. This application was purely to consider reserved matters.

·                    Consultation had taken place on the proposal, feedback had been taken on board and many revisions had been made to the application as a result. This included the incorporation of one bedroom apartments to help meet local need. The planting scheme had also been enhanced to improve screening.

·                    The applicant was aiming to reflect local character in the design of the dwellings/the site and had worked hard to deliver an acceptable scheme.

·                    Parking provision was in accordance with the required standards. Highways Officers had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

·                    The points raised by the Housing Officer had been addressed. This was the first phase of development for this allocated site with more development, including affordable housing, to follow. Approval would contribute to West Berkshire’s housing supply.

·                    Footpath improvements could be enhanced.

·                    Approval of the application was sought in line with the Officer recommendation.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

Councillor Tony Linden questioned plans to lessen the impact of the development on residents of the Hollies. Ms Quan explained that the indicative layout did form part of the outline application. Site constraints meant that options around the access were limited. However, the buffer had increased from that shown on the indicative layout to three metres on both sides. There was also willingness to accept an amended condition to allow for further negotiations on the buffer with the Hollies.

Councillor Graham Pask queried why the affordable housing was not proposed to be ‘pepper potted’. Ms Quan reiterated that this proposal was part of a wider housing allocation. This was the first phase only. In terms of the affordable housing for this application, the likely preferences of developers for clusters of affordable housing had been taken into account. Mr Pott added that this approach was easier to manage for developers.

Councillor Geoff Mayes queried access for construction vehicles. He was concerned that this would be restricted when taking into account the 0.6 metre gravel boards to be in place. Ms Quan explained that this would form part of the Construction Management Plan. Clauses within the S106 agreement would allow for access and the ability to manage ground levels. Mr Pott confirmed that these factors would ensure that access for construction vehicles could be accommodated alongside the gravel boarding.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam asked if the existing planting facing the road would be retained. Ms Quan advised that it would be necessary for some loss of this planting to accommodate the development, but replacement planting was proposed. The Ecologist was content on this point.

Councillor Cottam followed this by querying what would be retained. Mr Pott explained that the majority of existing planting would have to be removed to achieve the necessary sight lines. He reiterated that there would be replacement planting.

Councillor Jo Stewart referred to the impact on residents of the Hollies. She acknowledged the point around the three metre buffer, but this would not serve to abate noise from gardens when families/children would likely occupy some of the new dwellings. Mr Pott advised that he had much experience in the development of retirement villages and made the point that this type of noise gave enjoyment to some elderly residents.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Bridgman, in addressing the Committee as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                    Councillor Bridgman began by advising the Committee that he had held lengthy discussions with both the applicant and the owner of the Hollies on this application, and he would be making reference to some points highlighted by the Hollies.

·                    As explained in the report, the outline permission included two additional crossing points on Reading Road. However, this needed to be confirmed as the file plan showed a single crossing and a traffic island.

·                    Hours of work and the storage of construction vehicles/equipment was a point of concern for the Hollies, in particular the impact this could have on residents suffering from dementia. The request from The Hollies was that construction work should not start earlier than 10.00am to minimise the disturbance on residents.

·                    Turning to the boundary/buffer requirements, Councillor Bridgman felt there was a discrepancy in the plans. It needed to be ensured that the buffer ran the required length and an appropriate condition was needed to cover this. Once planted by the applicant, the maintenance of the buffer would transfer to the Hollies. The trees to be planted would be between 3 metres and 3.5 metres in height. He questioned whether the width of the buffer (3 metres) was an increase as this was not defined in policy and his understanding was that this was a proposal of the applicant.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Law referred to points of concerns raised by speakers and asked Officers to comment on those.

Starting with the landscape buffer, Lydia Mather (Senior Planning Officer) explained that the buffer was defined in the HSA DPD. In addition, a parameter plan was approved at the outline stage. She confirmed that the 3 metre width was an increase on the parameter plan.

The Tree Officer was content with the landscaping subject to conditions (condition 8). This condition could however be amended to exclude the existing landscaping plans in the area adjacent to the Hollies and for the details of the landscaping for this area being submitted separately and prior to occupation of the dwellings. This was supported by Members.

The policy guidance on the separation distance between properties was 21 metres and this was achieved for all plots with the exception of plot 4. Mrs Mather suggested that this could be resolved by repositioning plot 4 so that it overlooked garages rather than the Hollies.

Ecological aspects were considered at the outline stage when relevant documentation was submitted. This was not a consideration for this reserved matters application. The Ecologist had not issued a request for further documentation, i.e. Phase One Habitat Survey and had no objection to this application subject to conditions.

Gareth Dowding (Senior Engineer) clarified that crossing points were in line with the S106 legal agreement. There were two traffic islands near to the entry to the site but only one of those was a crossing point. The second traffic island incorporated a dropped kerb. In conclusion there were no road safety concerns.

Standard hours of work were set as a condition in the outline permission and would be reflected in the Construction Management Plan. The hours were: 7.30am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays; 8.30am to 1.00pm Saturdays; nothing on Sundays or bank holidays. Councillor Law queried if there was any scope to reduce hours in line with the comment of the Ward Member on behalf of the Hollies. David Pearson (Development Control Team Leader) advised that Members could suggest amendments, but the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that conditions needed to be reasonable before they could be imposed. It was queried whether there was scope to vary this condition when it was set at the outline stage. In response, Shiraz Sheikh (Deputy Monitoring Officer) did not feel that this would be possible.

Councillor Royce Longton queried the location of the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) pond. Mrs Mather explained that the Local Lead Flood Authority had not objected to the proposed location of the pond – which would be in close proximity to the woodland.

Councillor Geoff Mayes queried foul drainage of the site. Would this flow to a Thames Water pumping station or to the SuDS pond post treatment? Mrs Mather could not confirm this point but advised that Thames Water had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Mr Pearson added that this was a matter for building regulations rather than for planning.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam raised the need to be sympathetic to the needs of residents of the Hollies, in particular with regard to the location of construction machinery, vehicles and the construction office. Mrs Mather explained that this would be covered within the Construction Management Plan. Mr Pearson added that should this become a concern during construction, Environmental Health Officers could be asked to investigate.

Debate

Councillor Pask felt that the key points had been thoroughly debated. Outline permission was in place but it was critical that the needs of the Hollies’ residents were protected. He was reassured to note the point made by the applicant that he held experience in developing care homes/retirement villages and all efforts should be made to lessen the impact of the development on the Hollies. The applicant should strive to be a good neighbour to the Hollies as should potential future residents.

The Parish representative had raised concern over car parking. However, paragraph 7.31 of the report confirmed 78 parking spaces excluding garages when the requirement for the development was 72 spaces.

Councillor Pask supported the proposal to reposition plot 4 to mitigate the need to achieve the 21 metre separation distance between properties.

Councillor Pask proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to grant approval of this reserved matters application subject to conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Cottam.

Councillor Law queried if the repositioning of plot 4 could be an enforceable condition or included as an informative. Mr Pearson advised that the Committee could recommend approval of the application subject to the receipt of satisfactorily amended plans with authority delegated to the Head of Development and Planning to determine the amended plans.

Councillor Pask as proposer and Councillor Cottam as seconder were content with this addition to the recommendation.

Councillor Longton remained concerned at the impact this application could have on the residents of the Hollies based on the level of concern expressed by the Parish Council and objectors. These points would only be partially mitigated by conditions and he would therefore abstain from the vote.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission for this reserved matters application, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans for plot 4 and subject to the following conditions:  - including an amendment of condition 8 – landscaping and an additional condition relating to the landscaping directly adjoining (as set out below) The Hollies.

Conditions

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing numbers and documents:

Received on 5 April 2019

C-3000 Revision C

C-3001 Revision C

C-3005 Revision C

C-3006 Revision C

C-3010 Revision D

C-3011 Revision D

C-3015 Revision C

C-3025 Revision C

C-3035 Revision C

C-3040 Revision C

C-3041 Revision C

C-3042 Revision C

C-3045 Revision D

C-3050 Revision C

D7438.400

WLC194-1300-001 Revision A

The Environment Partnership Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan

Design and Access Statement

 

Received on 5 July 2019

C-1020 Revision L

C-1021 Revision L

C-1024 Revision L

            D7438.001 Revision 05

            D7438.101 Revision 06

            D7438.102 Revision 06

            D7438.103 Revision 06

            D7438.200 Revision 05

            D7438.201 Revision 05

            D7438.202 Revision 05

            D7438.203 Revision 05     

D7438.301 Revision 05

            174961-03 Revision G

 

            Received on 10 July 2019

            C-1022 Revision L

            C-1023 Revision L

 

            Received on 17 July 2019

174961-05 Revision C

            Received 18 July 2019

            C-3020 Revision D

            C-3021 Revision A

C-3030 Revision H

 

Received on 22 July 2019

            D7438.003 Revision 04

 

            Received on 26 July 2019

            C-1005 Revision L1

 

            Received on 30 July 2019

            C-1010 Revision E

Reason:   For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

2.    No development above the foundations of any dwelling shall take place until a schedule of the materials detailing the manufacturer and specifications to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to these matters which have been detailed in the current application.  Samples of the materials shall be made available for inspection on request. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

Reason:   To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policies ADPP1, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy GS1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design 2006.

3.    Should any unforeseen land contamination be found during the development all relevant works shall cease and details of the contamination and the mitigation measures required, including timescales, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the mitigation measures shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the relevant dwelling(s). Details of compliance with the mitigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the relevant dwelling(s). Should any land contamination not be found during development confirmation of this shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority upon completion of the construction of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Reason: To protect the amenity of future occupants in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and policies OVS.6, OVS.7 and OVS.8 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

4.    The drainage pond hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until details of its ongoing maintenance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the drainage pond shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the drainage and surface water flooding for the site is sustainably managed and maintained in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies GS1 and HSA16 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and the Supplementary Guidance Document: Sustainable Drainage Systems 2018.

5.    No dwelling shall be occupied until details of electric vehicle charging points for each house and communal points for the flats have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the electric vehicle charging points have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The details shall provide 7kw chargers for individual dwellings and 22kw chargers for communal areas, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, and policy P1 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

6.    No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicle parking and/or turning spaces have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plans.  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 in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

7.    No dwelling shall be occupied until the cycle storage has been provided in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason:  To promote cycling by providing convenient and safe bicycle storage in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

8.    With the exception of the landscaping within the buffer around the building known as The Hollies, all landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans, schedule of planting and retention programme of works and other supporting information including drawing n umbers D7438-200 Rev 05, 201 Rev 05, 202 Rev 05, 203 Rev 05 received on 5 July 2019 within the first planting season following completion of the construction of the dwellings hereby permitted. Any trees, shrubs or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die or become diseased within five years from completion of this development shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved. The landscaping shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the Environmental Partnership Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan received on 5 April 2019.

Reason:  To ensure the implementation, management and maintenance of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy July 2006-2026.

9.    The dwellings shown as plots 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 shall not be occupied until details of the landscaping within the buffer to the property known as The Hollies have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscaping shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwellings on the aforementioned plots. Any trees, shrubs or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die or become diseased within five years from completion of this development shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally provided. The landscaping shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the Environmental Partnership Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan received on 5 April 2019.

Reason:  To ensure the implementation, management and maintenance of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 

10.Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows/roof lights/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B and/or C of that Order shall be constructed at first floor level and/or within the roof on the north east side elevations of the dwelling of plot 17 on drawing C-1021 Revision L received on 5 July 2019 hereby permitted, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of an application made for that purpose.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties and to prevent the overlooking of Primrose Croft in the interests of neighbouring amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design 2006 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions 2004.

11.Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no buildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of that Order shall be carried out, on the area of land shown as a buffer to the woodland on parameter plan drawing 2610-A-1200-C to the north of plots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and flats 23-28 shown on drawing C-1021 revision L received on 5 July 2019 without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of an application made for that purpose.

Reason:   To protect the woodland and local wildlife area and in the interest of biodiversity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policies CS17 and CS18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies GS1 and HSA16 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

12.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or an order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be altered or erected of plots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and flats 23-28 shown on drawing C-1021 revision L received on 5 July 2019 where it would be on and/or along the edge of the area of land shown as a buffer to the woodland as shown on parameter plan drawing 2610-A-1200-C. No gate or means of access shall be provided from plots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and flats 23-28 to the woodland or the area shown as a buffer.

Reason:   To protect the woodland and local wildlife areas and in the interest of biodiversity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policies CS17 and CS18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies GS1 and HSA16 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.