Agenda item

(Councillor Gareth Hurley declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was in attendance at the Pangbourne Parish Council meeting when this application was discussed. However, he confirmed that he would be considering the matter afresh at this meeting. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01221/FULD in respect of the construction of a new dwelling with associated parking and landscaping.

Mr Bob Dray, Development Control Team Leader, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·                  Essentially, Planning Officers were recommending refusal of the item on three grounds highlighted below.

·           In principle, the site was positioned outside of the settlement boundary.

·           Regarding flooding, although the Environment Agency had removed its technical objection to the scheme, a policy objection remained as the proposed development failed the sequential test.

·           The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the street scene and the current green space to the end of the characterful road.

·                  The update report included an additional consultation response from the Lead Local Flood Authority however, this did not affect the policy flooding objection.

·                  In conclusion, it was felt that any benefit from the scheme was outweighed by the highlighted conflicts and harm and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Higgs, Parish Council representative, Ms Sara Dutfield, agent and Councillor Gareth Hurley, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Higgs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Pangbourne Parish Council was concerned that the scheme was outside of the settlement boundary.

·                    The distance between the closest building on Greenway and the proposal was only 11 metres and in the Parish Council’s view this should be no less than 21 metres.

·                    It was not felt that Appendix 1, which included the Design Statement for the application, accurately showed the building line for the site.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Alan Law noted in the Officer’s report that no objection had been raised by the Parish Council and therefore asked Mr Higgs to clarify the position of the Parish Council. Mr Higgs stated that the Parish Council’s decision about the application had been split for and against. Concerns had been raised about the scheme being outside of the settlement boundary and regarding the distance to the building opposite.

Agent’s Representation:

Ms Dutfield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Concerns had been raised about three areas including the principle of development, flooding and impact on the character of the area.

·                     There was no dispute that the site was positioned outside of the settlement boundary however, the nature of the surrounding land also needed to be taken into account, which included a Thames Water Plant.

·                     The site was not in open countryside and was within walking distance of the facilities available at the centre of Pangbourne.

·                     Given the location it was felt that the principle of development was acceptable.

·                     Regarding flooding, Ms Dutfield stated that there had been a delay in receiving information from the Environment Agency and some information provided had been inaccurate. The Environment Agency were now satisfied with the scheme and had no objection to the application being approved. Any issues raised by the Environment Agency should be included in conditions.

·                     It was confirmed that the proposed building was within a Flood Zone 1, which was very low flood risk. The land had not flooded in the last 12 years and the river had not broken its banks in that area, even during times of severe weather. Therefore it was considered that the scheme would not increase the flood risk, or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in the area.

·                     The design of the property was modern, this was however not a reason to refuse the application.

·                     The siting and design would not have a detrimental impact on the area. The proposal would not increase flooding in the area and was in keeping with the character of the area. For these reasons it was not felt that the scheme would set a precedent.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Hurley in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     He had attended the site visit and was familiar with the area.

·                     He did not see how the Committee could agree with a scheme that was outside of the settlement boundary without setting a precedent.

·                     Based on the information provided by Planning Officers, the negative impacts caused by the scheme would outweigh any benefits.

·                     He did not believe that there were any conditions included regarding the building phase of the application. Residents had raised concerns about this matter and therefore if the scheme was approved this would need to be included.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Alan Macro asked Officers to highlight on the plans where the Thames Water Pumping Station was and Mr Dray confirmed the location to Members of the Committee.

Councillor Macro asked for clarification that the site was surrounded by built forms. Mr Dray confirmed that the Pumping Station was close by. The building had been noted from the footpath on the site visit. Councillor Macro noted that there were buildings on all four sides of the site. Councillor Law commented that the main issue was that the site was outside of the settlement boundary.

Councillor Royce Longton queried the distances between properties highlighted by the Parish Council. It had been stated that the distance was only 11 metres when it should be 21 metres. Mr Dray stated that 21 metres was the minimum recommended back to back distance at the rear of properties. The front to front distance could be as little as 9 metres if a sensitive design approach was taken. Therefore Officers were comfortable with the distance of 11 metres.

Councillor Jo Stewart was concerned about the flooding risk and was interested in the amount of times flooding had been an issue in the area. Councillor Stewart asked Officers to clarify the issues around flooding. Mr Dray stated that land was classified as being in either Flood Zone 1, 2 or 3. Flood Zone 1 had the lowest risk of fluvial (river/coastal) flooding. Areas rated as Flood Zone 3 included functional floodplains, where flooding was expected. The applicant had consulted with the Environment Agency, which was satisfied that the site could technically be made safe, without increasing the flood risk elsewhere in the area. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and local policies included a flood risk sequential test that essentially sought to ensure permission was only granted on flood risk areas if there was not enough land that could be used for development elsewhere. As enough alternative land was available for housing in the district outside of areas of flood risk, the proposal would fail the sequential test.

Debate:

Councillor Law summarised that Planning Officers had two clear policy objections to the scheme. Firstly it was outside of the settlement boundary and secondly regarding the sequential test. He advised that if Members wished to approve the application they needed to clearly state exceptions as there was risk of a precedent being set elsewhere in the district if the scheme was approved.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam was of the view that settlement boundaries needed to be protected. He did not see how the scheme would benefit the community.

Councillor Macro was concerned about the elevation facade that would be plain brick and in his view would be dominant on the street scene.

Councillor Cottam proposed that Members refuse the application, including an addition to the third refusal reason, raised by Councillor Macro, regarding the appearance of the development, particularly the front elevation. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Linden. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cottam, seconded by Councillor Linden. 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: