Agenda item

(Councillor Geoff Mayes declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that his son was the finance director of TA Fisher (applicant for the application). As his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, he 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 Geoff Mayes left the room at 7.30pm)

(Councillor Royce Longton in the Chair)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/03209FULEXT in respect of the demolition of an existing building and construction of 15 dwellings, 2 retail units (use class A1/A2/A3), associated access, parking and landscaping.

Ms Lydia Mather introduced the report to Members’ of the Committee, which recommended conditional approval, and ran through the key points. The site was within the settlement of Theale. Part of the site was within a Conservation Area. Separation distances between buildings was in some cases less than 21 metres and therefore conditions had been added for extra screening.  The access for the site was off Crown Lane.

The Conservation Officer had been consulted on the demolition and was satisfied that the plans were in-keeping with the area. Ms Mather ran through comments from each of the consultees and additional conditions resulting from responses received.

Officers were recommending approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the required amount of affordable housing.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Martin Vile objector, Mr Michael Lee, agent, and Councillor Alan Macro, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representations:

Mr Martin Vile in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The density of the site exceeded that stated in the Council’s Core Strategy being 87 percent above the limit. The development would be imposing.

·                    The development had been designed based on unattractive office buildings close by rather than a more attractive residential area.

·                    A mix of one and two bedroom houses was not required in Theale.

·                    The north end of the site would be particularly dominating to the local area.

·                    The calculated loss of light to neighbouring properties was inaccurate.

·                    The angle from windows exceeded the 25 percent required.

·                    Crown Lane and number 77 Woodfield Road would be overlooked and separation distances were less than what was required.

·                    The 15m2 of amenity space proposed was below what was required. The density of the site was far too high and was in breach of the Council’s policy on this matter.

·                    The site would be accessed by a single track road that would not allow two cars to pass.

·                    Visibility splays shown in photos of the site were not truly representative.

·                    Increased traffic would cause further damage to roads near to the site.

·                    Refuse lorries would exceed the High Street’s 10 tonne weight restriction, making refuse collection particularly difficult.

·                    There was fear that there were not enough spaces being provided in the proposed plans for the site.  Vehicles would not be able to park on the access to the site without causing obstruction.

·                    Mr Vile referred to Core Strategy Policy Number Six, regarding affordable housing and stressed that the proposal conflicted with the Council’s requirement for five affordable homes on the site.

·                    The site would cause a loss in historical frontages in Theale.

·                    Due to the high level of negative impact that would be caused Mr Vile urged Members of the Committee to refuse the application.

Member Questions to the Objector:

Councillor Graham Pask referred to Mr Vile’s comments regarding refuse collection in the area. He noted that waste from the proposed properties would need to be taken through a walkway and asked if this arrangement was normal in Theale. Mr Vile was concerned that refuse bins would be placed on the High Street, which would block pedestrian access. The current building on the site was commercial and therefore refuse was collected from the access road. Further bins would compromise the safety of residents.

Councillor Pask also noted Mr Vile’s comments about lighting and angles and asked for further clarification on this point. Mr Vile confirmed that the sun rose over the High Street. He lived at number 12 and did not feel that the plans truly represented the degree of overlooking that would be caused into the windows of his property. If the proposal was agreed then it would block the light to Woodfield Way and the garden belonging to the Falcon Pub.

Agent’s Representations:

Mr Michael Lee in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The merits of the application highlighted in the Planning Officer’s report reflected the in-depth pre-application process that had taken place.

·         There were no outstanding technical objections to the scheme.

·         The Officer’s report noted that the scheme was in a sustainable location and would be of benefit to the whole community.

·         Conditions were included regarding the density and frontage of the scheme.

·         The second element of the proposal included 12 dwellings that were either one or two bedroom, which reflected the housing mix seen in the local area. The dwellings would be modern in design and fit in with the surroundings.

·         No objections had been raised by the Highway’s Officer. There was also a lack of objections from the statutory consultees.

·         The planning obligation would be secured by a Legal Agreement.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Andrew Williamson questioned Mr Lee regarding the area to the back of the site where the flats would be located, which had received objections from residents on density grounds. Mr Lee confirmed that the density was high in the area being questioned however, it was important to consider the context of the site. It was important to note that an approved application for a higher number of flats would be even higher in density.

Councillor Pask questioned the ethos of the area as 12 one to two bedroom units was disproportionate to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Mr Lee stated that the plans had been designed using the developer’s local knowledge and to ensure best use of the site was achieved.

In trying to understand the reason for the housing mix proposed Councillor Pask further questioned if the developer was trying to compensate for what was not being provided elsewhere in the area, rather than adhering to the SHLAA. Steve Davis (Applicant) joined Mr Lee at the presentation table. He stated that it was rare to have three or four bedroom flats and it was felt that one or two bedroom flats was what was required in Theale at this time to cater for younger people. 

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Alan Macro in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         In his view the proposal was squeezing too much onto the site and there was a shortage in amenity space.

·         Councillor Macro was concerned regarding the loss of significant light to properties close by.

·         Regarding the housing mix, as mentioned by Mr Vile, there were already 200 one to two bedroom flats in Theale.

·         Any development for more than five homes had to meet certain standards regarding access and in his view, the application in question did not meet these standards.

·         Councillor Macro was concerned about street lighting that would be provided as part of the development, which might not be welcomed by residents living near to the site.

·         There had been no reference made to pedestrians however, there would be extremely poor sight lines.

·         Councillor Macro felt that the frontage along Theale High Street should be a classed as a Non Designated Heritage Asset as it contributed greatly to the street scene.

·         Councillor Macro was concerned regarding refuse collection and did not see how this could be carried out without causing obstruction to pedestrians.

·         Councillor Macro expressed his concern regarding large lorries that would carry out deliveries to the retail units on site and cause an obstruction

·         Councillor Macro was concerned about the amount of parking. Parking elsewhere in Theale was either expensive or restricted.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Pask stated that he had attended the site visit and referred to highways concerns. The access to the site had been adapted for office use however, if approved this would change to residential use and there could possibly be 24 vehicles needing a parking space and increased traffic movements. If approved there would be a single lane access with poor sight lines onto Crown Lane. Councillor Pask asked the Highways Officer to comment on these points.

Mr Gareth Dowding stated that the development would utilise an existing track. The development could cause a number of traffic movements. Members needed to be mindful that just because very few traffic movements were generated by the site currently, this would not necessary stay the case even if the application was refused. Gareth Dowding stated that Highways Officers would struggle to justify reasons for refusal.

Councillor Williamson queried if the access met the adopted standards. He also queried affordable housing and the contribution amount of £50k, which in his view did not seem enough. Mr Dowding stated that where there was an access servicing five or more separate dwellings, there were standards that needed to be met however, this did not include a single block of flats.

Ms Mather referred to Councillor Williamson’s comment regarding affordable housing and referred to Policy CS6 which stated that subject to the economics of the provision there was scope for negotiations. Robust negotiations had taken place with the applicant regarding affordable housing and the Council’s consultant had advised that £50k was likely to be the most that could be achieved. Ms Mather confirmed that for this scheme one unit normally equated to £120k.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that the recommendation for approval was finely balanced. He queried why there was not considered to be a conflict with policy when the density of the site was above the maximum according to Mr Vile. Ms Mather drew attention to section 6.7 of the report which provided details regarding density. There was an allowance for above 50 dwellings per hectare for developments at places with good public transport nodes and no maximum was defined. Councillor Mackinnon accepted that 50 dwellings per hectare was only a guideline.

Councillor Williamson referred to the distance between the proposed development and existing dwellings. He asked if distances were based on property to property or took gardens into account. Ms Mather reported that distances provided were building to building and did not include gardens.

Councillor Williamson queried the height of the development. Ms Mather showed the Committee photos that had been taken, showing a lady holding a five metre pole at the end of the gardens that backed onto the site. This provided Members with an idea of how high the development would be. Ms Mather added the caveat that the proposed units would be further away than the pole being held up.

Debate:

Councillor Pask stated that it had been very helpful to attend the site visit as it enabled him to make a judgement on the impact the proposal would have. Councillor Pask was concerned about the access to the site and refuse collection. There would possibly be 15 bins placed on a footpath along Theale High Street. Councillor Pask was concerned about the impact that the three storey block would have and he had noted this at the site visit when standing at the end of the site, near the proposed access. What currently stood on the site was of no architectural benefit in his view however, this should not be a justification for granting planning permission.

Whilst on the site visit, Councillor Pask stated that Members had spent time looking at the view to Crown Lane and along the footpath. The sun had been shining helpfully on the day of the site visit and it was noted where a shadow would be cast if the proposal was granted. Councillor Pask felt that for existing dwellings backing onto the site, the proposal would be overbearing, overshadowing and detrimental to amenity.

Councillor Williamson stated that he was concerned about the density of the site. Guidelines on density suggested 30 – 50 per hectare and the proposal greatly exceeded this. He reiterated Councillor Pask’s concerns in relation to refuse collections. Councillor Williamson was concerned about the access to the site and vehicles reversing out of it. Highways were unable to find reasons to object to the application.

Regarding affordable housing Councillor Williamson was displeased with the figure of £50k, when Officers were saying that a figure in excess of £600k was actually required. Councillor Williamson proposed that Members refuse the application due to the level of density, traffic issues and affordable housing. Councillor Pask seconded the proposal and added the overbearing nature and loss of light to the reasons for refusal.

Legal Officer, Sharon Armour, asked for clarification on the reasons for refusal. Planning Team Leader, Bob Dray, stated that Members had heard from the Highways Officer, who had raised no objections to the site. It was agreed by Members that the reasons included impact on the character of the area; impact on neighbouring amenity; an inadequate amount of amenity space and an insufficient S106 contribution. 

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Williamson, seconded by Councillor Pask. 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:

1. The proposed development would provide inadequate outdoor space on site. The proposal includes a combination of private and communal gardens, a communal roof terrace and balconies. Overall the proposed provision would be approximately 260m2. Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design Part 2 sets out that for flats outdoor space from 25m2 should be provided for 1 and 2 bedroom flats. For 15 flats from 375m2 in total should be provided. 12 of the 15 flats would have either no provision or less than 25m2. As such the proposed development fails to provide a reasonable provision of quality outdoor space on site contrary to Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design Part 2 2006 and failing ot make a positive contribution to quality of life contrary to Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
2. The proposed residential building of 12 flats would have an overbearing and overshadowing impact on the occupiers of adjacent dwellings and dominate their outlook due to its proximity and height. The building would be set less than 21m from No. 77 Woodfield Way and No. 12 off Crown Lane, with the closest part of the building being 3 storeys in height and just over 9m. The proposed residential building therefore detracts from the living conditions of surrounding occupants, and fails to positively contribute to quality of life. The application is therefore contrary to policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, The National Planning Policy Framework 2;019, and the Council’s adopted Quality Design SPD 2006 (part 2).
3. The proposed development fails to provide appropriate provision towards affordable housing. The contribution offered would be less than half of a single unit of affordable housing as part of the proposed scheme. As such, the development fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, policy CS6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and the Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations.
4. The proposed density and scale of the residential development at 93.75 dwellings per hectare would be particularly high in an area of lower density housing development of predominantly detached and semi-detached dwellings with some flats above retail units. As such it would fail to respect the prevailing character of the area and setting of the conservation area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, and policies CS4 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.