Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/01803/FUL in respect of the demolition of a derelict public house and construction of surface car park, including associated fencing and security control.

Ms Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and ran through the key points. It was confirmed that approval had been given in principle for the loss of the public house.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Kevin Page, Parish Council representative, Robert Teesdale, agent, Councillor Peter Argyle, Ward Member and Councillor Tony Linden, Adjacent Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Kevin Page in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was the Chairman of Tilehurst Parish Council. The report provided by the Planning Officer was comprehensive and the Parish Council agreed with the recommendation to refuse planning permission.

·         The proposed car park, which would entail a large area of hard standing was not in keeping with the surrounding residential area. In the view of the Parish Council one blot on the landscape would be replaced with another if the application was approved.

·         The Parish Council had not received enough information about the application however, now that this had been received it still did not fee assured.

·         There was concern that the application would increase traffic in the area particularly on the bend at the bottom of Langley Hill. 

·         If the site became a car park there was concern that there would be re-occurrences of travellers using the site as has occurred in the past. The site was notorious for travellers. There had been a number of traveller incursions on the site, which was why bollards had been placed at the entrance.

·         The access to and from the site was particularly concerning. It had been noted from a letter on the 14th August that security fencing and CCTV was proposed for the site. The Parish Council questioned if this would provide adequate security. The fencing and CCTV facility would also be unsightly in the local area.

·         The Parish Council questioned if there was any need for a car park in the proposed location.

Agent’s Representations:

Mr Teesdale in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He would manage whatever development went ahead on the site.

·         The site had been labelled a ‘Brexit’ site and any plans for domestic housing were not currently viable. This would however be looked into in the future.

·         The car park would provide a short term business and 24 hour security would be provided on the site. This would include a security person being present on the site 24 hours per day and this was important with regards to comments made about travellers.

·         The applicant was responsible for ensuring no-one was able to enter the site and cause harm to themselves. At the present time the site was often used by people using illegal substances, and needles and faeces had been removed from the vacant building on the site.

·         Regarding the appraisal for the site, a development plan had been established and the loss of the public house had been approved in principle.

·         The car park would just be a short term business and Mr Teesdale stated that the site had once housed a public house and therefore had already been used for car parking purposes in the past.

·         Regarding the character and appearance of the site, this was covered comprehensively in the report. The aim would be to build housing on the site as soon as possible.

·         The impact on amenity was minimal. Security on the site was a key point of the application as it would provide a person on the site 24 hours per day. This would help to deter travellers and keep the health and safety risk, including the use of illegal substances on the site, to a minimum.

·         It was noted in the report that a small number of buses served the area however, what had been omitted was that the times of these services had been reduced substantially.

·         It was noted that the site was unattractive at the current time and this was unlikely to change prior to housing being approved.

 Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Graham Pask referred to the point that the site would be used for housing in the future. He acknowledged that the existing structure was hard to secure and asked why this had not been demolished. Mr Teesdale stated that they had been advised that they were not allowed to demolish it currently.

Councillor Alan Law further queried the point about demolition of the current structure. Mr Teesdale referred to the outline application for the site for four houses, which had been approved. Until this application was progressed they were unable to secure the demolition of the public house. He asked Officers to state if this point was incorrect.

Councillor Peter Argyle asked if there was any evidence to suggest the sort of people that would need to use the car parking facility if approved. Mr Teesdale stated that the facility would be aimed at car sharers and those using the M4 corridor. No traffic of parking survey had been undertaken. It was a sensible business proposal to help raise revenue that would also help secure the site.

Councillor Williamson further questioned the point of demolition. He asked if permission was being sought for the car park so that the building could be demolished. If permission was given to simply demolish the structure, Councillor Andrew Williamson asked if the applicant would be happy with this. Mr Teesdale stated that the applicant would be happy with this however, there was the issue that open space attracted travellers.

Councillor Williamson noted that there would be a security person on the site 24 hours a day, seven days per week. He queried why CCTV was also required. Mr Teesdale stated that people liked to feel assured that their vehicle was being watched at all times.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Peter Argyle in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had listened to the problems currently being caused by the site, which was an eye sore however, as stated by Planning Officers the use of the area as a car park was not in keeping with the residential character of the area. 

·         The site with the current structure demolished would be even more out of keeping with the area.

·         Councillor Argyle was not sure how many people would actually use the site for car parking.

·         There were currently bollards on the entrance to the site that would need removing and this could be an incentive for travellers.

Councillor Argyle read out a statement from his fellow Ward Member, Councillor Richard Somner, who raised the following points:

·         The current site was a health and safety risk as well as a security risk.

·         West Berkshire Council had repeatedly funded solutions to manage travellers due to the site being vacant and unsecured, such as implementing a barrier blockade to the road, which needed to be monitored to ensure it remained in place.

·          There was great concern from the general public in the area. The site was an embarrassment to anyone who cared about the area and to the two Parish Councils.

·         Whilst the original use of the building historically generated a reasonable amount of traffic during lunch or evening trading hours there would be great concern regarding the impact of increased traffic volume at probable peak hours.

·         Councillor Somner provided details of the existing public transport services to the area that served the A4 corridor well.

·         There was little evidence that encouraging residents to drive to the location to car share would be beneficial to either the area, the local residents of the environment.

·         What needed to happen with the site, in Councillor Somner’s view, was the fulfilment of the previously approve application to develop the site into homes that were in keeping with those surrounding it.

·         If the original use of the building could not be reinstated then were was an extant application that should be put into action. If not in full, then initially with the safe demolition of the current building and securing of the site.

Adjacent Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Tony Linden in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         His Ward was just across the road from the application site. The site was a complete eye sore and there was concern regarding the safety, particularly with regards to children.

·         Councillor Linden stated that there was already a car park at Sainsbury’s that could be used and a bus services in the area.

·         As stated by Councillor Somner, the site should be used for housing. He was aware of issues relating to Brexit however, this was the same for everyone.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

Councillor Law asked if the car park at Sainsbury’s was time limited. Councillor Linden stated that there was no camera in place currently. Others in the area were time limited but Sainsbury’s was not.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Pask asked if the current structure could be demolished. Mr Bob Dray stated that there was outline consent for housing on the site, so reserved matters with conditions could be applied for by the applicant. Based on what had been said, Mr Dray suspected that the concern with the extant permission may be that a CIL charge would become liable if demolition occurred under the terms of that permission.

Sarah Melton stated that the outline application would be valid until April 2021. Mr Dray stated that a reserved matters application could be made up to three years from the date of the outline permission, and that a further two years would be allowed following approval of reserved matters to implement.

Councillor Williamson noted that the local community had an issue with the building and therefore for the good of the community asked if the Council could help to facilitate demolition of the building. Ms Melton stated that standalone application for the demolition of the building could possibly be approved without a CIL Charge.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam asked if it was the owner’s responsibility to ensure the site was safe and it was confirmed that it was although Mr Dray stated that this fell outside of the planning system.

Councillor Geoff Mayes asked if the land owner was responsible for the cost of removing travellers from the site. It seemed that the car park might be a solution to this issue. If the vacant structure was removed it would leave the site open and Councillor Mayes was concerned that it would leave it vulnerable. Ms Melton stated that this was not for consideration as part of the application. Mr Dray elaborated that safety, securing and ASB were capable of being material considerations, but advised members that they should not base a decision based on reference to any particular group of people.

Councillor Williamson asked if the land to the front of the site was within the ownership of West Berkshire Council and Mr Goddard confirmed that it was.

Councillor Joanne Stewart was interested that an objection had not been raised by Highways. Councillor Stewart was concerned about access in and out of the site. She felt that this could be particularly dangerous when exiting the site when trying to see if vehicles were travelling down Langley Hill. Councillor Stewart asked for comments on her points from the Highways’ Officer. Mr Paul Goddard stated that if the car park was used by car sharers then there would be less vehicles on the road. A highways assessment had not been carried out on the site and if Member’s were concerned this could be added as an additional reason for refusal to the application. Mr Goddard reported that the sight lines onto Langley Hill were deemed acceptable. Councillor Law concurred as the site once housed a public house. Councillor Stewart agreed with this point however, highlighted that traffic would not have been travelling in and out of the site at peak times.

Councillor Law queried if the application was for a temporary or permanent car park facility and Mr Dray confirmed that the application was for a permanent car park. Temporary permission could be considered, although Officers had considered this option and concluded against such a recommendation.

Debate:

Councillor Williamson proposed that Members approved the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission, based on the reasons detailed in the report. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Argyle.

Councillor Macro was concerned about the viability of the proposal. He feared that if not enough funding was raised to fund the security proposed for the site then issues could arise. Councillor Macro supported issues raised by Officers and the impact these would have on the area.

Councillor Graham Pask understood the problems raised by the applicant however, felt that a demolition plan with secure fencing would be favourable. Councillor Pask supported the Officers recommendation to refuse planning permission.

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