Agenda item

Proposal:	Approval of reserved matters following outline  permission 16/02529/OUTD - Change of use of part of existing agricultural field to residential and the erection of 5 no. detached dwelling houses with ancillary garages, access, parking, landscaping and associated works.  Matters seeking consent - Appearance, landscaping and scale.
Location:	Land Adjacent To Summerfield, The Ridge, Cold Ash, Thatcham, Berkshire.
Applicant:	T A Fisher and Sons Ltd.
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS subject to conditions.

 

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. They had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh.  As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(All Councillors declared a personal interest in Agenda Item (4)1 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(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/00832/REM in respect of the approval of reserved matters following outline permission 16/02529/OUTD - Change of use of part of existing agricultural field to residential and the erection of 5 no. detached dwelling houses with ancillary garages, access, parking, landscaping and associated works. Matters seeking consent - Appearance, landscaping and scale

2.     David Pearson 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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. On balance, officers recommended that the Committee grant planning permission.

3.     As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

4.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from Cold Ash Parish Council, Mr and Mrs Vanstone, Mr John Berry, Mr Paul Shave and Mr Bernard Clark, objectors, and Katherine Miles, agent.

5.     Written submissions were read out by the Clerk to the Committee:

Parish Representation

The written submission of Bernard Clark, Vice Chair of Cold Ash Parish Council was read out as follows:

Let’s start with the good news: West Berkshire Council OWN the hedge next to Summerfield. From the definitive map that Highways provided on 16th March, this is 100% certain.

By magnifying that map, it’s easy to measure the width of West Berkshire’s ownership of the verge, and the width of the hedge. (Also, there’s a wire fence on the field side that delineates the boundary between the West Berkshire owned verge and the farmer’s field).

So, the hedge is 100% within West Berkshire’s verge, that’s 100 per cent certain; West Berkshire Council OWN the hedge, as West Berkshire Officers have known for some time.

Why is this important? For two reasons.

Firstly, because West Berkshire, like all owners, have total rights over it. Preservation of the hedge is not only a planning matter, but under the control of any owner. Given that West Berkshire Council have publicly said that they want to take the lead in enhancing the district’s arboreal heritage – planting thousands of trees – it’s great news that they own this beautiful, important hedge. Because it’s entirely in your power, Councillors, to preserve it or destroy it, at today’s meeting. As owners.

It is your hands on the chainsaw.

The second reason your ownership is important, Councillors, is because the question then arises of the danger of being misled by the Senior Planning Officer, whose responsibility it is to provide you with an accurate, clear and impartial Report.

Please look at item 6.38 of the Planning Officer’s Report.

That makes it appear like West Berkshire Council DON’T own the hedge.

We’ve read it to a dozen impartial people – that’s what they thought.

You may feel it’s been deliberated drafted to confuse, to seem like West Berkshire DON’T own the hedge, without actually saying that.

If so, you may wonder if it’s wilfully disingenuous, designed to mislead you, elected Councillors. You’re simply trying to do the best job you can, needing to trust Executive Officers to be clear and impartial, and to help you understand the truth.

And --- if the report is demonstrably misleading on this key point, how can you trust it on others?

Well, that’s most of our 500 words gone – on the hedge.

Except to say – our planning regulations do not allow the planning officer’s report to be biased or misleading. By law it has to be balanced.

And that Parishioners of Cold Ash are outraged at how this development will fundamentally change the gateway into our village, with five massive houses. The scale, mass, uniformity, is completely out of keeping, especially bordering the AONB.

So please use the power vested in you by our democratic system to resoundingly vote this flawed application down, so West Berkshire can work together with us – the local community – and the developer, to come up with the right, sensitive solution for a beautiful location in our village.

Objector Representation

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, as multiple parties had made written submissions, an officer has provided a summary of the issues raised. The full submissions were made available to the Members of the Committee, and have been published alongside the Agenda for this meeting.

The summary of the written submissions of Mr and Mrs Vanstone, Mr John Berry, Mr Paul Shave and Mr Bernard Clark, objectors, was read out as follows:

‘It is a legal principle that planning decisions may be quashed if the overall effect of the officer report significantly misleads about material matters and these are left uncorrected. The officer report does significantly mislead you about material matters relating to Mass, Context, Hedgerow, landscaping and AONB.

The Original Reserved Matters were refused in 2018 due to:

‘The overall scale and massing of the new dwellings would be significantly larger and higher than existing dwellings within this part of the village.

‘External appearance and massing would urbanise the village’

‘Large dwellings on this prominent site would be out of character and detrimental to this rural village location’

‘The scale of the buildings would adversely affect the amenity of existing dwellings'

The massing of the proposed dwellings is materially unchanged since then. Whilst there is a “Scale and massing” section in the latest officer report, it does not draw members’ attention to the GEA or GIA figures. The paragraph 6.12 conclusion is based on incomplete analysis.

Gross External Area of each proposed house remains 39% larger than the average of surrounding dwellings on the southern side of The Ridge, where the building style comprises alternating bungalows and small houses. The proposed development would result in a monolithic slab of bricks and mortar, five equally-sized large houses that would not associate well with the existing eclectic mix of dwellings, and urbanise the eastern gateway.

In terms of context, the officer report is significantly misleading. The smallest GEA of the 5 proposed dwellings is 300m², with the average being 302m². By contrast, the GEAs of the two dwellings adjacent to the application site are only 188m² and 260m². The average GEA of the 11 surrounding dwellings is 240m². The context is thus one of dwellings with a much smaller GEA than the GEA of the 5 proposed dwellings.

Hedgerow

The proposed access will destroy the majority of the existing frontage hedgerow that has incorrectly been defined as not being an important hedgerow on the basis of the flawed analysis of the criteria set out in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

Landscaping and AONB setting

The conclusions as to landscaping and AONB setting are tainted by the errors described above.

Previously Mr Derek Carnegie gave assurance that sound architectural design and planning judgement would be brought to bear to ensure sympathetic development of the site. The plans before you today are precisely what Councillors Pick, Bryant, Beck and Simpson warned of at that time.

A more appropriate scheme would include 1.5 storey houses with bungalows at either end. Residents are fully accepting of this development, so long as scale and mass are appropriate, and the existing hedgerow preserved intact.

The strength of local objection must be taken into account.

The misleading aspects of the officer report must be corrected and for the reasons set out above this application should be refused. ‘

The above representations are stated to be on behalf of Cold Ash Residents with specific endorsement by Mr and Mrs Vanstone, Mr John Berry and Mr Paul Shave.

In addition, the above summary incorporates a separate objection from Mr Bernard Clark.

Agent Representation

The written submission of Katherine Miles was read out as follows:

Policy HSA7 allocates the site for "5 individually designed dwellings" and requires:

·         "Individual accesses ... provided from The Ridge in keeping with the local pattern" - The allocation plan clearly shows 5 separate points of access.

·         "Built development confined to the higher ground along the road only".

·         'The provision of a soft edge to the southern boundary of the site with tree planting".

Outline Planning Permission (16/02529/OUTD) was granted for 'The erection of 5 detached dwelling houses with ancillary garages, access, parking, landscaping" 24 October 2017.

The Approved Block Plan shows the three approved access points. The Approved Visibility Splay drawing and Condition 9 require visibility splays of 24m x 43m to be provided.

Paragraph 6.2.4 of the Officers report to the Western Area Planning Committee 15 March 2017 referred to the importance of the existing hedgerow within the street scene and concluded that the proposed three access points were "preferable to five individual driveways".

Importantly, the Outline Planning Permission established:

·         The principle of development;

·         The roadside hedge is an important feature;

·         Three access points are acceptable (and preferable to the allocation requirement for five); and

·         There would be a need to remove hedgerow to achieve the required visibility spays to ensure highway safety and this impact was acceptable.

The remaining Matters for consideration now are:

·         Scale

·         Appearance

·         Landscaping

Scale

There has been a significant reduction in height from the previous refusal. The submitted sections (see drawing no. 18-P0023-107 Rev E) demonstrate how the development will respect the prevailing character of two storey houses. The streetscene also shows how the proposed houses will respect the prevailing character of the area, with dwellings stepped down, working with the topography.

There will be significant gaps between the buildings to maintain views through the site as required by Policy HSA7.

We agree with your officer's conclusion at para 6.12 where he states that ''This revised scheme...in terms of massing and scale...would harmonise with the surroundings".

Appearance

The Ridge is characterised by two-storey dwellings with significant variation in design.

Individually designed dwellings are proposed to complement and respect the character of The Ridge with features including hipped rood, dormers, gables, chimneys and timber framing.

Landscaping

The principle of 3 new access ways with associated visibility splays was established at the outline application stage.

A rural "instant" hedge is proposed at a minimum height of 1.Sm to off-set the loss of hedge to create the approved access points and achieve the required visibility splays. The Landscape and Tree Officer raises "No objection".

In summary, the Site is allocated in HSADPD with outline Planning Permission for 5 houses approved in 2017.

Access to the site by way of three separate access points is Approved.

The scale of development is significantly reduced from the previous scheme and harmonises with the character of the area. The appearance respects the locality. The landscape scheme mitigates the impact of development including the creation of the approved visibility splays.

Planning Permission should therefore be granted in line with the Officer recommendation.

Ward Member Representation

6.     Councillor Garth Simpson in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·           Three issues had not been dealt with by due diligence and process:

o   It was an important hedge under the Hedgerow Regulations and Environmental Act.

o   The Scale and massing of the development did not reflect the housing on the ridge in the immediate vicinity.

o   Amenity was impaired.

·           The detrimental Impact on the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy ADDP5.

·           The hedgerow was an important one, as acknowledged in Policy HSA7.

·           At the outline stage Members were given clear statements that the hedge did not contain any important plant species or ecology. This was true.

·           The agent stated that it was not an important hedge in the meaning of the acts, but this was not true

·           Intent on providing three accesses, Members triggered the right to legally cut down the hedge, but no mention was made of the historical criteria in the Hedgerow Regulations and Environmental Act that rendered its legal importance.

·           Simon Vanstone took just four hours, including a drive to Reading, to prove that the hedge held historical significance, which more than satisfied the historical criteria of the acts. Where was the archaeological input to the case and HSA7? It was all available online.

·           What justification lay behind the agent’s statement?

·           We were angry.

·           Highways Officers used the 30MPH speed limit as a proxy for average speeds, in order to derive the splays of 43 metres for the accesses.

·           The site was just within the speed limit. Cars were on training throttles or accelerating away. 35 metre splays would have eliminated almost the entire hedge. Was this robust? Where was the due process and diligence on behalf of officials and Pro-Vision?

·           Members should ask critical questions. Point 6.19, in the officer’s report indicates that in improving the sightlines the council was legally entitled to cut down the hedge. 

·           In terms of scale and massing, the Gross External Area (GEA) (an expression of massing) of this application were still 300m² each, which was 21% more than the surrounding 11 houses, and 39% more than the alternating small houses on the southern side.

·           Members should ask the following:

o   Why three successive case officers recommended to the objectors that they thought the site should have three one and a half storey houses, and two bungalows

o   Whether the proposed changes of scale and massing were significant enough to address the 39% excess? Were they token? The GEAs were unchanged. Only two houses of the surrounding 15 were of a similar size.

o   Whether point 6.12 was not an illogical inversion of the reality. This application imbalances the existing houses.

·           The North Wessex AONB and its setting were taken seriously. Members should dissect with care point 1.4 in the officer’s report. The author of the report could not bring them-selves to state that the ridges on the road were the physical boundary of the AONB.

·           He asked where the required balance of officialdom was. This site was mega-sensitive. Five 300m² houses with razor-blade gaps were an immediate hard, urban start to the AONB setting.

·           An original ground for refusal for 18/01977/REM mentioned scale and massing. Whether by conscious or unconscious omission, and clearly cursory examination, due diligence and process had not been followed at the outline stage. Outrage at the loss of the hedge was expressed by Councillors Paul Bryant, Anthony Pick, Jeff Beck and himself at the outline stage.

·           A second look at the number of accesses by Derek Carnegie (Development Control) had been promised. The repetition in the officer’s report that it was a done deal, was not sufficient.

·           Members were not being provided a second look at the accesses as promised.

·           Councillor Simpson recommend that the Committee refuse this application, on the grounds of the destruction of an historic hedgerow, the need for a single access, appearance, scale and massing and amenity of adjacent housing.

·           The proposal was not compliant to policy.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers queried whether Councillor Simpson was the ward member when the Housing Site Allocations Development Planning Document (HSADPD) was being considered, and whether he had any comment on the recommendations made. Councillor Vickers recalled that at that time there was discussion around individual access for each house. Councillor Simpson explained that he and his colleagues were against the site as a matter of principle. However, at the time he was not literate on accesses and splays, and they were not debated at any detailed level. He was aware that the standard trip analysis was done at that time.

8.     Councillor Carolyne Culver asked who was responsible for maintaining the hedge. Councillor Simpson advised that the hedge was currently not being maintained by anyone.

9.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked for clarification as to which expression of scale Members should use to compare the development and the surrounding properties. Councillor Simpson explained that the GEA was the best way to compare the development with houses in the vicinity. Simon Vanstone and his team had surveyed all the surrounding houses using builder’s plans, where possible. The 21% applied to the fifteen houses on both sides of the ridge. There were only two houses of the same comparable size of 300m² and 39% applied to the smaller range of alternating bungalows and one and a half storey houses on the southern side. Therefore, 39% on the southern size and 21% overall for both sides.

10.  Councillor Abbs remarked that he was struggling to reconcile the data and come up with the argument as to why it was grossly disproportionate. Councillor Simpson asserted that the figures were cast-iron and solid.

11.  Councillor Abbs observed that hedges were important. He asked whether Councillor Simpson was certain that it was owned by West Berkshire Council. Councillor Simpson answered that he was no longer sure.

12.  Councillor Abbs further queried, what percentage of the current hedge would be lost to the three accesses. Councillor Simpson replied that there were various opinions, however he estimated that it would be between 55% and 59%, with an optimistic splay assumption.

13.  Councillor Simpson had been hoping to carry out a speed survey for the Neighbourhood Development Plan, but it had been delayed by the covid-19 outbreak. He judged that the average speed was 36 miles per hour. The objectors favoured a single access.

14.  The Chairman reminded Members that the issues for their consideration were appearance landscaping and scale. The hedge issue had already been approved in the reserve matters.

15.  Councillor Abbs explained that the reason he was concentrating on the hedgerow was because it was about appearance, and how the houses sat within the landscape.

16.  Councillor Hilary Cole in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·           When the outline application was approved by Committee in 2017, and the subsequent applications refused or deferred, this site was not in her ward. However, following the boundary review it was now contained in the combined Cold Ash and Chieveley Ward.

·           Councillor Hilary Cole hoped that as co-ward Member, she would be able to bring objectivity to the debate by exercising her judgement on the application on planning grounds. She fully supported the officer recommendation as set out for the following reasons:

·           This was an allocated site in the HSADPD which was adopted by Full Council in 2017. Outline permission had already been granted for the site and the Committee was being asked to approve design and layout. The agenda clearly stated that the matters for consideration were appearance, landscaping and scale.

·           This meant that many of the issues raised by the objectors should not be considered by the Committee, as they were the subject of previous consideration, including the issue of the hedge.

·           In the agenda, at point 6.9, it was noted that the applicant had gone a considerable way to address the reasons for refusal from 2018. This was a clear indication that residents’ concerns had been listened to and acted upon, including the reduction of additional accesses to two.

·           The site was located outside the AONB, but within its setting, therefore additional frontage planting had been proposed.

·           Many objectors were making suggestions as to how the application might be changed to make it acceptable to them, but Members had to consider the application as it was presented. Members could not, nor should not change planning applications or policy on the hoof.

·           Councillor Hilary Cole understood the concerns of local residents and acknowledged that feelings were running high. However, she had to reiterate that West Berkshire Council was a plan led authority and this site formed part of West Berkshire’s Local Plan.

·           In her opinion, and taking into account her thirteen years on the Committee, she found this application reasonable and saw no reason why it should be refused, particularly as it was acknowledged that more housing was needed in the District and this development would help fulfil that need.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

17.  No questions were asked by the Committee.

Questions to Officers

18.  Councillor Culver considered the matter of the hedge to be of appearance and landscaping, but did accept that it was part of the approved outline planning permission. She addressed the following questions to officers: whether officers knew who maintained the hedge currently; how much weight should be given to the Village Design Statement (VDS), as she considered that the application contravened approximately four parts of the VDS; and, as the ecological studies were out of date, should newer ones have been carried out before the application could be considered.

19.  In response, David Pearson confirmed that the previous land-owner maintained the hedge. West Berkshire Council ownership of the land included the verge, but not the hedge. He asked Councillor Culver to outline that the relevant parts of the VDS. Councillor Culver listed the following points:

a.    ‘HOU2 – Sympathetic infilling in settlement boundaries is supported where properties are well matched with neighbouring properties in terms of design and scale.’

b.    ‘SPGR3 – Height of new buildings should be in proportion to their surroundings.’

c.    ‘SPGR4 – New developments should be appropriate in scale, form and siting to the adjacent settings.’

d.    ‘FT1 – New housing developments should include an appropriate mix of building sizes and styles, which conserve and enhance the character of the villages.’

20.  David Pearson stated that he entirely understood the first three points raised, but the professional view of officers was that the development did meet the first three requirements. Officers had considered the VDS and their professional opinion was that there was not conflict. In terms of the lack of mix of house type on the site, he accepted that there was a uniformity of style, but that Members should consider whether there was any harm caused to warrant refusal of the application. Officers had considered this and did not think there were grounds for refusal that would stand up at appeal. His understanding was that, as the principle of the application was accepted at the outline stage, and only the reserved matters were being considered that there was not necessarily a need for another statement. However, as this was not his area of expertise he asked the Ecology Officer to clarify. Gareth Ryman was of the opinion that as the outline plans had been approved in 2016, the Ecology Statement was out of date. National Policy had changed, with the most important being the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2019. The Chairman noted that the provision of a new Ecology Statement could be included in the conditions.

21.  Councillor Jeff Cant had considerable respect for Councillor Hilary Cole’s view, due to her experience on the Committee, and noted that it would be easy to be drawn back into reconsidering issues that had already been resolved by previous planning decisions. The Members were constrained to considering the reserved matters. He asked officers to clarify the scale and massing in plain English and run through why they thought the scale was more suitable than the original considered. David Pearson noted that he was not involved in the outline application, however he had reviewed the files and spoken with the officers involved. He understood that Members concerns at that time of the first refused reserve matters application, were about the height of the dwellings and the roof form, which appeared to limit gaps between the dwellings. The current scheme had a revised roof form, which gave a feeling of more space around the properties, and reduction in height of the dwellings. Officers considered that these changes had addressed Members concerns.

22.  Councillor Abbs enquired as to the differential between the ridge heights of the proposed homes and that of the neighbouring properties. David Pearson referred Members to the report, page 33, paragraph 6.10. He conceded that the properties were higher than the neighbouring houses, however officers considered that this was not significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

23.  Councillor Abbs sought clarification on the massing and square footage of the proposed development and how officers had come to their conclusion that the application was acceptable on this point. David Pearson reiterated that officers had understood that Members’ concerns were concentrated on the height and roof form of the design. The outline plan had given implicit approval for the floor area of each dwelling. He was unclear how the objectors had calculated their figures and whether they were accurate.

24.  Councillor Abbs noted that Members were being asked to consider the design landscape and scale of the proposal. However, as the scale of the development had already been approved, what was left to discuss. David Pearson reiterated that officers had focused on addressing the concerns raised by members in the previous refusal. When the Committee had approved the outline application, it approved the layout that showed where on the site each house would be, and its floor area. Where Members had expressed concern about visual impact and impact on neighbours, it was in reference to the height of the properties and roof form. Officers had addressed those concerns. Councillor Abbs observed that he was not a Member of the Committee when the previous decision had been taken and asked the Chairman whether he should take scale into consideration. Councillor Hooker confirmed that Members were being asked to discuss appearance landscaping and scale.

25.  Councillor Hilary Cole sought confirmation as to whether the hedge was an ancient hedgerow. Andrew Giles asserted that in his opinion and that of the Ecology Officer on the 2016 approved outline plan, the hedge was not important due to the plant species it contained.

26.  Councillor Phil Barnett asked whether the appearance of the development would impact the AONB. Andrew Giles explained that there was a significant hedge on the southern boundary, and round the hedge there were 15 to 20 significant trees. The trees to be planted were heavy standards, which would aid screening in the medium to long term.

27.  Councillor Howard Woollaston noted that he was reasonably happy with the scale of massing, however he was concerned about the hedge. He wondered whether there was any condition that could be applied that would reduce the amount of hedge lost.

28.  David Pearson did not recognise the objector’s figure of 55-59% reduction. He understood that the hedge would only be reduced by approximately 25% under the current scheme. There would also be significant new planting behind the areas where some of the hedge had to be removed to achieve sight-lines. Once this planting had matured, there would be a substantial hedge along the frontage, albeit with two additional entrances in place.

Debate

29.  Councillor Culver opened the debate by noting her concern about officer’s response regarding the VDS, as she felt the document had been undermined as officers had not taken it into consideration when determining the planning application. With regards to the issue of massing, she noted that the red shaded area on the plans showed the footprint for the previously refused dwellings and that it was not dissimilar to the new application. Also with regards to the Ecology Survey, officers had confirmed that it was out of date and this should be taken into account. In view of the height and mass of the proposed dwellings, and her concerns regarding the Ecology Study, she would be inclined to oppose the application.

30.  Councillor Abbs remarked that he had been attempting to garner information that would mean he could support the application. However, he was left with a series of unanswered questions about: massing; volume compared to neighbouring properties; visual impact; landscaping; impact of chopping down a mature hedgerow; how much hedge would be lost and did it really need to be chopped down. He had not been convinced that all the objections and the VDS had been taken into account. He concurred with Councillor Culver. He suggested that it would be so easy to address the remaining concerns and bring forward the housing that was needed. He agreed with Councillor Hilary Cole that the area needed new houses, however this design was unacceptable. He found reasons to refuse the application in design, landscaping and scale. 

31.  Councillor Vickers noted his gratitude to Councillor Culver for her study of the VDS and points she had identified. This proposal was clearly against the spirit and the letter of the VDS. He was inclined to vote against officer recommendation on the grounds of scale and appearance. He observed that all development to the south side of the ridge and the skyline were important to the setting of the AONB. He considered that the height and massing of any new developments should be kept to a minimum. He judged that the changes from the last refusal were minimal and derisory.

32.  Councillor Vickers proposed to reject officer recommendation and refuse planning permission.

33.  Councillor Barnett recalled the site visit on a cold and windy day in March 2020 and it had made him realise the contours of the land. He was concerned on the two properties, Summerfield to the west and the farm to the east, as they would be most impacted. He recognised that the Committee should be considering scale, and he was convinced that the scale was out of keeping with the neighbouring properties. He did not focus on the statistics but on the impact the proposal would have on the neighbouring properties. He welcomed new development, however he could not accept properties of this scale on that particular site. It would affect the entrance from the east to the village of Cold Ash. He would support a refusal of this application.

34.  Councillor Hilary Cole thanked the officers for a balanced and thorough report. She noted there was agitation about the size and the scale of the buildings compared to the surrounding properties. She lived on a lane, which had a variety of sizes of building, in an old cottage and her neighbours had homes which were considerable higher, as they were modern. Any two storey property built next door to a bungalow, will obviously be out of scale. After the site visit, she had observed the other properties along the ridge and noticed that they were of a variety of sizes and styles. It was important therefore, that the Committee accepted that times changed and that to put a plethora of single or one and half storey buildings into this area would result in people not buying them. The developer had gone a long way to address the issues. She accepted that village design statements were a material consideration, however the Cold Ash design statement was eighteen years out of date and there had been other development in Cold Ash since then.

35.  Councillor Abbs seconded Councillor Vickers motion.

36.  David Pearson understood that Members might have a different opinion as to the merits of the application and its relation to the VDS. However he found it difficult to accept the suggestion that officers had not taken it into account. Case officers had taken key documents into account when making their assessment and had taken the view that the application was acceptable. He asked for Members to identify the reasons for refusal.

37.  The Chairman asked the Legal Advisor and Planning officers for help in this matter.

38.  Councillor Vickers, as the proposer, suggested the reasons of scale and the developments relation to the neighbouring properties, and asked that the VDS be specifically cited as supporting the reason for refusal. He recalled that the HSA7 calls for “individually designed dwellings”, therefore appearance was an important reason, as the properties were out of character with the Ridge. He was particularly concerned about the height and its prominence when seen from the Ridge.

39.  Councillor Culver noted that in addition the issue of the footprints was important. The new proposal was not significantly amended from the previously refused application.

40.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Vickers, seconded by Councillor Abbs to refuse planning permission, contrary to officer recommendation. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission contrary to officer recommendation, on grounds that the proposal fails to respect the character and appearance of the area in terms of scale and appearance.