Agenda item

(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. 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. Councillor Vickers made a clarifying statement to the effect that he lived within approximately 200m of the site and in a Zone 3 property, however he did not believe this was a conflict of personal interest. He noted that he was on record as having voted against officer recommendation at the Western Area Planning Committee on 5 February 2020, where a similar issue had been raised and that he was predisposed to opposing officer recommendation on this matter. However he was open to persuasion and had not predetermined his view on this item.)

(Councillor Jeff Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. 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.)

(Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that his commercial offices were within 100m of the property. 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/00152/FUL in respect of the demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 2x semi-detached dwellings and 1x detached dwelling with associated works.

2.     Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. He drew the Committees attention to a previous application which had been refused by officers, and dismissed at appeal. The officer’s recommendation had been led by the Inspectors previous decision on a proposal for a development in a similar location and design.

3.     As proposed site fell within a Flood Zone 3, policy CS16 applied and a sequential test was required. A sequential test was a process to access whether there were any alternative sites within the whole district which were less likely to flood that could be developed in preference to this site. Once these sites had been used or were unavailable, then sites more likely to flood could be considered. This process was a way to manage risk and to direct development to areas that were least likely to flood, and applied to new developments.

4.     As the application would result in a net gain of one house, officers carried out the sequential test over the whole of the district. The agent disagreed with this approach and felt that only Newbury, Thatcham and the eastern urban areas of the district should be included in the search area. There were six to seven sites within Newbury that were sequentially preferable, therefore the proposal had not passed the sequential test. The Inspectors decision on the appeal for the last application was that the lack of harm to amenity and street scene, did not outweigh the issues of a sequential test.

5.     In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory and a conditional approval could not be justified. Officers recommended the Committee to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and in the update report.

6.     The Chairman invited the Highways Officer to speak. Paul Goddard noted that Highway Officers were generally content with the proposal with regards to parking levels and access. There were some further amendments required for the cycle storage and electric vehicle charging points, which could be easily overcome by amended plans and conditions, therefore on their own were not enough to recommend refusal. Highways Officers have no reasons for refusal, subject to these amendments

Removal of speaking rights

7.     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.

8.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, a written submission had been received from David Jones (Evans Jones Ltd), agent.

9.     The written submission was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Agent Representation

Your planning officer’s report comprehensively sets out the planning matters to be considered with this application. Officers have recommended that this application be refused consent solely on the grounds of flood risk.

We have worked constructively with officers to find a solution to the recommended refusal reason. Regrettably, we have been unable to reach agreement.

This application is twin tracked with application reference 20/01186/FUL, which is to be determined later today under committee item 4(2).

This alternative application (which is recommended for approval by officers) is for the conversion of 1 and 3 Kennet Road from two dwellings to create six self-contained flats (a net increase of 4 dwelling units).

In comparison, this proposal seeks consent for the demolition of existing dwellings (2 dwelling units) and erection of 2No. semi-detached dwellings and 1No. detached dwelling (a net increase of one dwelling unit).

It is acknowledged that the application site lies within Flood Zone 3, and thus new build housing requires the submission of a sequential test.

Disagreement exists between your officers and the applicant in respect to the scope of the sequential test, we would thus ask members to consider this application from a practical standpoint.

The sequential test submitted with this application demonstrates that there are no sequentially preferable sites within a reasonable search area. Officers consider that the search area should extend to the whole district, whereas we consider that the sequential test should be limited to the comparable urban areas of the district.

The applicants submitted sequential test clearly demonstrates that none of the other sites in line with the methodology of the test are suitable and/or available alternatives. Thus, we submit that this proposal passes the sequential test

We would urge members to consider this application pragmatically applying logic and common sense. The proposed development will provide high quality accommodation complying with all local and national planning policies.

It is notable and very relevant that the statutory consultees responsible for flood risk matters (Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority) raise no objection subject to condition. It is an important factor that the site is within an area that benefits from Environment Agency flood defences, substantially reducing the risk of flooding.

It is accepted that the site is in a location where the principle of development is acceptable and that there is no objection from the Conservation Officer.

Furthermore, it is noted that the officers conclude that proposal will not give rise to issues of impact to neighbouring amenity.

The proposed development has wider sustainability benefits, in accordance with the objectives set out in the National Framework. Additionally, the development will be safe for its lifetime through appropriate mitigation and the presence of flood defences.

Mindful that your officers are supportive of the alternative development proposal (conversion to 6 flats) we submit that three new build dwellings provide an opportunity to create a high-quality development accommodating appropriate flood mitigation measures.

We thus respectfully request that members support this proposal.

Ward Member Representation

10.  Councillor Andy Moore in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         Councillor Moore had called-in this application because of the sensitive nature of the site, the potential effect on the neighbours at 34 Craven Road and the current dilapidated state of the properties being discussed. He reminded the Committee of the previous applications on the site. He felt that the Committee needed to take stock of the whole position and was grateful that the Chair agreed.

·         He knew the area well, as he cycled through it frequently.

·         There were technical issues with the development, for example the flood risk assessment and the sequential test, however he did not propose to dwell on these.

·         He was pleased that the applicant had proposed an alternative scheme, to be considered as item 4(2) of this Committee, as they had recognised that a new build scheme would not be in accordance with policy. He was pleased that the officers were recommending refusal, as did the planning inspector when dismissing the appeal.

·         His focus was on the proposal for a substantial, new, three storey building on the corner of Craven Road, which was a feature of all previous applications. He noted that neither the officers nor the inspector saw the building as out of keeping, as the height was principally compared to properties in Craven Road, and not the lower properties in Kennet Road.

·         The officer’s report noted that the Conservation Officer had not objected to the proposal. However, in earlier comments from the Conservation Officer, concern had been expressed about the over development of the open corner plot, the proposal’s failure to enhance or preserve the setting of the designated heritage assets and its impact on the historic original West Mills Farm House, which No.1 Kennet Road adjoined.

·         Councillor Moore agreed with the Conservation Officer’s comments, furthermore a substantial building on the corner, would have significant effect on the amenity of a property on Craven Road.

·         It is a pity that site visits could not be carried out, but he was pleased that extra photographs had been included in the officer’s presentation.

·         In addition to being the Ward Member, he was also on Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee, and the views he expressed were those of the Committee.

·         In conclusion he agreed with officer’s recommendation to refuse the application

Member Questions of the Ward Member

11.  Councillor Phil Barnet asked if Councillor Moore could recall whether Kennet Road had ever been flooded. Councillor Moore confirmed that he remembered flooding in the roads and back gardens around the area, but not actually in Craven or Kennet Road.

Questions to Officers

12.  Councillor Abbs noted that there was an occupied building in the garden of the property that had not been mentioned in the presentation. Matthew Shepherd clarified that the log cabin shown in the layout plan was part of a previous application. Enforcement officers were aware of the building and were investigating. Councillor Abbs asked if the presence of the structure should be taken into consideration as it was a substantial sized building. Matthew Shepherd explained that it was temporary in nature, subject to planning conditions and therefore subject to removal. Although it was a consideration on the site, it did not change the officer’s recommendation.

13.  Councillor Tony Vickers queried why the sequential test had not been given as a reason for refusal before the appeal. Matthew Shepherd explained that it was picked up as an issue during the preparation of documents for the planning appeal.

14.  Councillor Vickers asked for confirmation that neither the policy nor the interpretation of policy changed at that point. He continued by noting that in the appeal decision report, paragraph 16, the Inspector stated that development would be allowed in flood risk areas where a set of criteria could be satisfied, including that the benefits to the community could outweigh the risk of flooding.

15.  Councillor Vickers asked officers to confirm that the Inspector was not indicating that flood risk and the sequential test outweighed everything else and that the Committee could weigh the matter of flooding in the balance with other aspects such as, The Local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Matthew Shepherd shared an image of the wording of CS16 and explained that the sequential test and the exception test were one, two barriers, therefore the sequential test had to be passed in order to move onto the exception test. Officers did not consider that the benefits of the scheme, or lack of harm, outweighed the conflict with policy CS16, this was supported by paragraph 16 of the Inspectors report. Members could take the view that the benefits did outweigh the flood risk, but officers had been guided by an Inspectors decision, and their own thoughts on this application, that material considerations do not outweigh the risk.

16.  Councillor Carolyne Culver queried why officers felt it was inappropriate to build in a flood zone when the Environment Agency had made no objection. She also queried whether there had been any flooding, as Councillor Moore was not aware of any. Matthew Shepherd explained that flood zones were dictated by the Environment Agency using statistical models and showed areas that were at risk of flooding, not necessarily those that had flooded. The Zones could change as they were also a prediction, as they factored in climate change. The Agency had marked this area as being at a high risk of flooding. It is up to the Planning Authority to assess the information and manage the risk. Through the sequential test officers seek to remove the risk entirely by directing development to areas of little or no risk of flooding. The Environment Agency had informed the council that there was a risk that needed to be managed, and therefore had no objection.

17.  Councillor Howard Woollaston asked for clarification on how No.1 and No.3 Kennet Road, and 34 Craven Road could be separated as they looked like they were originally the same house. Matthew Shepherd explained that this was a civil matter and would be taken up between the neighbours. Councillor Woollaston further queried whether the garden area had been taken into consideration. Matthew Shepherd confirmed that the strip of land indicated was part of the existing amenity space for No.1 and No.3 Kennet Road, and would form part of the garden the semi-detached dwellings.

18.  Councillor Jeff Cant sought clarification on the sequential test. As he understood it, the principle was that the Planning Authority would not grant consent for properties in areas of flooding, unless there was a compelling reason to do so, whilst there were other sites available throughout the planning area. Matthew Shepherd confirmed this was correct.

19.  Councillor Hilary Cole asked if there would be an increased risk of flooding should the garden land be built upon, as if it were to be kept open it would help with drainage. Matthew Shepherd explained that this would have been considered as part of the exception test, should the application have passed the sequential test. It might be that an open garden space would provide more drainage, however he was unable to answer definitively.

20.  Councillor Abbs asked whether all previous and current applications had been brought forward by the same party. Matthew Shepherd confirmed that this was correct.

21.  Councillor Vickers referenced the Environment Agency flood alleviation defences and queried whether the flood zone mapping took any account of the change in flood risk. He had looked at the Environment Agency’s latest report for this area of Newbury and it claimed that, as a result of that scheme, it had achieved a significant reduction in the flood risk from the river. Matthew Shepherd explained that the Environment Agency had updated their modelling and mapping and that this area was still in Flood Zone 3, although the alleviation scheme reduced the risk of flooding, there was still a risk of flooding in Newbury. The sequential test aimed to avoid further development in areas of risk. This did not discount the reduction in risk as a result of the alleviation scheme, however there still was a risk to properties and, in accordance with the NPPF, we should not be putting more properties in harm’s way.

22.  Councillor Vickers posited that as the current houses were in an extremely poor condition, whether a pair of new build properties would be significantly more sustainable, better environmentally and socially. Matthew Shepherd observed that there were some schools of thought that reusing and repurposing materials might be more a  more sustainable way of building, for example using less new concrete, less heavy machinery. A refurbishment might reduce profit margins, however this was not a planning matter.

Debate

23.  Councillor Abbs opened the debate by noting that for a second Committee in a row an application has been presented where enforcement should have been carried out. He was greatly frustrated. The reality was that the green land had been covered over and it needed to be returned, especially in a flood zone. He saw no reason to go against officer recommendation.

24.  Councillor Vickers noted that photographs added to the presentation showed two signs outside the building saying ‘danger - unsafe structure’. He believed that the buildings were beyond repair and restoration. He felt that should the application not be approved, the site would gradually decay and bring down the character of the area. He would love to see it restored. He believed that the application could be approved if members agreed with him, that there were no other solutions to the problem of this dereliction. Alternatively, he wished the applicant the best of luck with his extant application to demolish and partially restore the property.

(Councillor Vickers lost connection and the meeting was paused while he reconnected.)

25.  Councillor Cant understood Councillor Vickers’s point of view, however he felt it was a simple issue of whether the Committee agreed or disagreed with the planning officer’s recommendation, based on the fact that this property was proposed for construction in an area of potential flooding. He proposed to accept officer recommendation and refuse planning permission. Councillor Woollaston seconded the proposal.

26.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth remarked that he did not agree with Councillor Vickers’ view that the existing buildings could not be restored. In Hungerford there was a prominent building that had been just a shell, and been returned to its former glory. He understood in terms of development it was easier to level a plot and start again, but that did not make it the right thing to do. In this instance, he would be far happier to investigate plan B.

27.  Councillor Hilary Cole supported officer’s recommendation and Councillors Cant and Benneyworth. Development by dereliction was not an uncommon practice in her point of view, and she felt this property could be restored. With regard to Councillor Vickers view that a new build would be of a better quality and more environmentally friendly, there would be an argument for razing all the properties in that area to achieve the same objective. It was a spurious argument.

28.  Councillor Barnett had taken note of Councillor Hilary Cole’s comments, however he was concerned about the state of the property. He was also aware of the concern of nearby residents. On balance, he felt it was beyond repair and would therefore vote against Councillor Cant’s proposal.

29.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cant, seconded by Councillor Woollaston to refuse planning permission. 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:

Refusal Reasons

1.    Not passing the flooding sequential test (amended text as per the Update Report)

The application site is within Flood Zone 3 and Policy CS16 says that in areas with a history of flooding development will only be accepted if it is demonstrated that it is appropriate in that location, and that there are no suitable and available sites at a lower flood risk. It goes on to say that where development has to be located in flood risk area that it should be safe and will not increase the flood risk elsewhere.

The sequential test was submitted and assessed by officers. The LPA has reviewed the submitted sequential test and finds that the development does not pass it. The sequential test search area is limited to just the Urban areas of the district, the LPA is of the opinion that the search area should district wide. The Sequential test submitted is therefore inadequate in scope to fully assess sites that might be sequentially more favourable to build upon in terms of flooding.

The assessment of the sequential test misses sites that are actively being marketed (at the time of writing the document) to which meet the criteria set out in the submitted sequential test and are considered reasonably available by the Local Planning Authority.

The submitted sequential test discounts sites that the Local Planning Authority considered to be reasonably available. The submitted sequential test discounts sites due to them falling with Flood Zone 2 or a critical drainage area to which are areas of lesser flood risk and therefore sequentially preferably to develop prior to this site. The development is therefore not considered to pass the sequential test and therefore does not accord with CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and paragraphs 157 to 161 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.