Agenda item

(All Councillors declared a personal interest in Agenda Item(4) 4 by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/01281/OUTMAJ in respect an outline application for demolition of existing Newspaper House and commercial buildings and redevelopment of the site for 71 flats and office accommodation together with parking and associated works. Matters to be considered: access, appearance, layout and scale.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Parish Council representative, and Mr James Gurney (Newspaper House Holdings Ltd) and Mr Steven Smallman (Pro-Vision) applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Lydia Mather introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to expound on his part of the report. Paul Goddard noted that there had been concerns regarding an increase in congestion, with an estimated 45-47 additional movements. However, with the changes to Fleming Road and the access to Faraday Road, it was felt that traffic would be sufficiently dispersed. He was content with the layout of the site, and believed the shortfall in the number of parking spaces (39) could be mitigated through a Parking Management Plan, where commercial and residential properties would share the spaces.

5.     Mr Foot in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The Town Council had listened to the arguments and commented that they were concerned about the proximity of the development to the A339, and the air and noise pollution this would cause for the residents of the flats.

·                     He was also concerned about the flood risk and would be interested to see the Committee’s deliberations, as there were clearly some more explanations required.

6.     Mr Smallman objected to the Chairman raising with him, at the beginning of the meeting, the submission deadline for information to the Committee. He was unaware of the rule that information had to be submitted at least five clear working days before the meeting, and took offence that he was being accused of repeated unfair behaviour. This rule was not the norm for councils and had not been made plain to him.

7.     The Chairman offered his apologies if he had been mistaken and asked the Legal Officer to clarify matters.

8.     Sharon Armour explained that the rule was contained within government legislation and applied to all local authorities, not just the council, and was printed on the front page of the agenda, third paragraph. Mrs Armour read out the relevant paragraph.

9.     The Chairman reiterated that any information should be sent to planapps@westberks.gov.uk so that it could be processed.

10.  Mr Smallman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The regeneration of the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) had been a key strategic objective for West Berkshire Council for the last ten years. It had been delayed by problems and legal challenges.

·                     He believed the Committee should actively support the development of this key location. It was a mixed use development, which was highly sustainable due to its closeness to the town centre.

·                     It would provide new homes, office accommodation, rejuvenate the LRIE and provide a contemporary, high quality key gateway to the town.

·                     It was fully aligned with policy and was a sustainable, effective use of previously developed land.

·                     The plans had been worked on since 2016 and had twice been redesigned to alter the height, mass and scale.

·                     The development would provide much needed office space, which had been lost in the town centre and replace the Newbury Weekly News site with high quality accommodation.

·                     There had been no objection to the current scheme and one would expect the Committee to welcome and support the design. However the planning officers were now recommending refusal in response to criticism of the sequential test results. Pro-vision had not seen the report and were unaware of the officers decision, until its publication five days prior to the meeting.

·                     He believed the criticisms of the sequential test were ill-conceived, and that planning officers had given too much weight to the Environment Agency’s view in making their decision.

·                     There were no reasonable, available sites in areas of lower flood risk. He felt it was appropriate to conclude that this site had passed the sequential test.

11.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Mr Smallman had very clearly explained why the Committee should approve the planning application, however he had not explained why the site had not been put forward for inclusion in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HEELA). The deadline for inclusion had been extended specifically for agents to put forward sites such as this. Mr Smallman explained that a HEELA was the evidence base for the Local Plan to record vacant brown-field sites which could be released for development in the future. This site was ready for development now. There was no point in including it in the HEELA, as it should be released now.

12.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the site was not in the current Local Plan, and that this therefore negated his argument.

13.  Councillor Hilary Cole further questioned whether the site would be fitted with sprinklers, as required by The Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS). Mr Smallman replied that this would be decided in the more detailed plan.

14.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked for clarification as to whether the agent was indicating that he had not submitted the site to the HEELA, as it would have delayed the process if the site had been included. Mr Smallman explained that it was not a site that had to be allocated, as it was already in the process of being designed. He and officers had been working on the scheme for the last two or three years, and it had reached the point where it was acceptable. He therefore saw no reason to promote it to the HEELA, and delay development.

15.  Councillor Phil Barnett addressed the concerns regarding the proximity to the A339 and queried whether the apartments would be properly insulated against noise and pollution. Mr Smallman advised that there had been discussion with Environmental Health Officers, and that the flats would be suitably ventilated and insulated.

16.  Councillor Abbs pointed out that there was an existing development on the A339. Mr Smallman advised that there was existing consent on Faraday Plaza.

17.  Councillor Jeff Beck in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·                     He had great sympathy with the Canal and River Trust who felt that the visual aspect of the development would be in the eye of the beholder. He felt that the appearance of the development needed further consideration.

·                     With regards to flooding, there was concern over the Environment Agency’s view about the sequential test and the flood plain. Water did not stop at the red line on a plan. He understood this would impose severe restraints on developing the area.

·                     He was concerned that the RBFRS had not resolved the issue of how residents would be rescued should there be a flood. Future residents and business owners might suffer difficulties in getting adequate or affordable insurance policies if this question were not resolved.

·                     He endorsed the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

18.  Councillor Vickers asked if there had been any comment from the Civil Contingencies Officer on the Environment Agency’s stance. Lydia Mather replied that she had requested additional comments from both the Civil Contingencies Officer and RBFRS, but had not yet received them.

19.  Councillor Adrian Abbs queried whether any trees would be removed. Lydia Mather explained that this would be addressed by the Tree Officer as part of the Landscaping plan, should the application move to the next stage.

20.  Councillor Claire Rowles requested clarification on the site parking and whether the Highways Officer had considered the consequences of the car park being flooded. Paul Goddard explained that the requirement for residents was 124 spaces, and for commercial use was 116, making a total of 240. However, there were only 201 spaces on the plan and therefore a shortfall of 39. If Members chose to approve the application, there would need to be a Parking Management Plan put in place. This would involve a shared parking, where commercial use would occur during the day and residential parking would use the spaces at night. Councillor Rowles commented that this plan was based on assumptions. Paul Goddard concurred that it would need to be controlled to be achievable. Councillor Rowles further averred that parking on the site was currently very tight, with no overspill facility. Paul Goddard noted that if Members saw parking as an area for concern, they could use it as a reason for refusal. He had not considered the consequences should the underground parking become flooded.

21.  Councillor Rowles raised a concern that should the site flood, it would become an island and if the water was deep enough the vehicles would float and block emergency access.

22.  Councillor Vickers advised that there was a stairway leading up out of the site. He conjectured that an emergency only bridge could be built to get residents away from the site.

23.  Lydia Mather responded that there were suggested measures in place, however she had not received a response from the RBFRS.

24.  Councillor Abbs inquired as to what was the delta between the existing number of vehicle movements, and the proposed development. Paul Goddard advised that there were 103 existing traffic flows and the increase would be 45-50 additional vehicle movements. He acknowledged this was an increase, however with the new road arrangements in the area, the traffic would be dispersed and the impact was not sufficient to raise an objection.

25.  Councillor Abbs further questioned the level of flood protection provided by the flood alleviation schemes. Lydia Mather explained that due to the lifespan of the development, the Environment Agency advice was that where the development was being sited in Flood Zone 3, it therefore would have an annual probability of a 1 in 100 year flood.

26.  Councillor Rowles asked for further explanation as to the affordable housing level. Lydia Mather explained that it was at a policy compliant level.

27.  Councillor Hilary Cole expounded that the site would be assessed against the current Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and had not been put forward for the HEELA as a brown-field site. There was nothing to prevent it being included so it could be considered properly. She was disappointed it had not been submitted as the consultation had been extended for this very reason. She did not accept that this site met the current policy requirements with regards to flooding, and could therefore not support it.

28.  Councillor Abbs proposed to reject officer’s recommendations and approve the application. He could not recall a better brown-field site in such a sustainable position, and did not consider the flooding objection as realistic.

29.  Councillor Vickers seconded the proposal to reject officer’s recommendation and approve permission. He felt that the sequential test explanation was too technical for Members, and considered the argument an unnecessary delay. He felt instinctively that this development was too strategic to refuse and would have enormous implications for Newbury.

30.  Sharon Armour asked the Committee what conditions it wished to include in addition to the Section 106, should they vote to approve the permission. Members answered that they were content with standard conditions, but noted conditions such as parking management, refuse storage management, noise mitigation and other matters would also need to be conditioned.

31.  Councillor Rowles noted that the officer’s recommendation to refuse was based on technical points and policy grounds, which were difficult to understand. She was nervous to go against recommendations on such a large scale development, when she did not fully understand the argument. She was finding this decision problematic as the development was great for housing, but she had concerns about policy and parking.

32.  Councillor James Cole described how he was left feeling there was too much unanswered about flooding. He was loathe to vote against the application. He noted the concerns of the Canal and River Trust had not been addressed. He posited that as the design was not good enough, it should have been revisited.

33.  Councillor Barnett noted that the location of the development meant that residents might not need to use a vehicle. However he had concerns that it was close to the A339 and would need adequate insulation. He thought that the car parking issue could be overcome and would be interested to see how this would be managed. In conclusion, he felt uneasy about the technical objections and was not prepared to vote against officer recommendation.

34.  Councillor Culver was confused that flooding was only being discussed now, when this was a long term development. She concurred with fellow Members that, as this was a technical objection, she did not want to go against officer recommendations.

35.  Councillor Abbs described that the flood diagram showed the site as an island, and either this situation had been mitigated, or it had not. He did not understand how the sequential test could indicate anything other than that the millions of pounds spent on flood defence mitigation, had resolved the risk of flooding in the area.

36.  At the vote, the motion to reject officer’s recommendations and grant planning permission was refused.

37.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed a further motion to accept officer’s recommendation and refuse the application. Councillor James Cole seconded the motion. 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 residential development fails to demonstrate that there are no suitable and available alternative sites at a lower risk of flooding. The search area and methodology of the submitted sequential test are not accepted. As such the proposed development fails the flooding sequential test with regard to residential development contrary to policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, and the Planning Practice Guidance.

The application fails to provide a planning obligation to deliver affordable housing. The application is therefore contrary to the policy CS6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.