Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of use of land and the construction of a 150 space car park with alterations to the highway, landscaping, and associated works.
Location:	Land to the South east of Mortimer Station, Station Road, Mortimer.
Applicant:	Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council.
Recommendation:	Delegated to the Head of Development and Planning to refuse planning permission

 

(Councillor Ross Mackinnon declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied on the item. 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.)

(All Members of the Committee declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were politically acquainted with Richard Benyon who owned Englefield Estate. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00674/FUL in respect of the change of use of land and construction of a 150 space car park with alterations to the highway, landscaping and associated works.

Mrs Lydia Mather, Senior Planning Officer, gave a detailed presentation on the application and planning report. Key points included:

·         Planning Officers were recommending refusal and the main concerns were the number of spaces proposed, road safety over the bridge and landscape impact.

·         Since the application last came to Committee in August 2020 the issues identified including lighting had been advised to the applicant. Additional information had been submitted including a new red line, including the landscaping; a technical note on parking and Great Western Railway (GWR) design and electrical specifications.

·         Mrs Mather showed slides providing a parking count and extracts from the Statement of Community Involvement. Although there was demand for more parking at Mortimer Station it was difficult to assess from the information the actual additional spaces required.

·         Highways continued to have safety concerns regarding the safety of the footpath over the bridge due to the steepness of the gradient and separation distance from vehicles.

·         It was agreed that there was a need for additional car parking spaces, it was the size and scale that was not considered justifiable. 

Removal of Speaking Rights:

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was 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.

The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Mike Dennett, Parish Council, J and R Clatworthy, Chris Bridges, M&D Developments and Mr D A Rootham, objectors, Tom Pierpoint, supporter, and Katherine Miles, agent.

Parish Council Submission:

The written submission of Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council (SMPC) was read out as follows:

·         SMPC fully supports this application for an additional 150 space car-park at Mortimer Station. The application derives from the strong local wish for increased station parking, evidenced over a long period with full support from GWR and Englefield Estate.

·         This is an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) project. In the NDP questionnaire 1006 people (92%) endorsed station car-park enlargement. This was the highest single response in a lengthy questionnaire resulting in Policy IS3: “extension to the station car-parking will be promoted and encouraged”. SMPC is fulfilling the wishes of the community in this application.

·         Our Statement of Community Involvement shows we involve Mortimer residents in line with the Localism Act 2011. The Community Needs survey 2018 attracted 494 responses with overwhelming support for increased and improved station parking:

-       410 (83%) - current parking provision poor or very poor

-       377 (76%) - would travel by train more if parking more accessible

-       438 (87%) - train use would increase with improved parking

·         Note the survey was only carried out within Mortimer, probably capturing a third of the possible catchment of Mortimer station. The survey did not account for the 110 new homes since granted permission.

·         Analysis of the results establishes the need for 150 new parking spaces which is endorsed by GWR.

·         West Berks Core Strategy 2012 - Area Delivery Plan P6 Identifies “poor transport connections of the East Kennet Valley” … “improvement to the accessibility of Mortimer

·         Railway station will be sought, for example through enhancements to the road bridge. This will be taken forward through partnership working”. This application is clearly consistent with this WBC policy so, please, can we see some partnership?

·         Increasing capacity at Mortimer station also supports CS13 – “Improve travel choice and facilitate sustainable travel particularly… between... main urban areas and rural service centres”.  Mortimer is a Rural Service Centre.

·         The parking shortage has led to dangerous parking along Grazeley Road (up to 25 cars) eroding verges and along The Street towards St. Mary’s School exacerbating significant dropoff/pickup issues, generating continued complaints to SMPC and WBC.

·         The village centre is over a mile from the station with no public transport link. The steep hill means walking to and from the station is impossible for many. This project will maximise the number and condition of those able to travel by rail. Of course, some disabled will still not be able to travel alone. But the new arrangements will allow for anyone to be dropped off and picked up on both sides, a great improvement.

·         SMPC would not put forward proposals significantly detrimental to our landscape. We are confident that the extensive planting proposed will within a short time result in the car-park being largely invisible from all directions. Car-park lighting will be exclusively low-level, motion-activated and not obtrusive elsewhere. We note that the WBC landscaping consultant is based in Cumbria and did not visit the site whereas ours is local and did.

·         SMPC urges councillors to support this application to give Mortimer residents what they have strongly requested.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

(Mr Mike Dennett was in attendance to answer questions)

Councillor Ross Mackinnon raised a question for Mr Dennett regarding the objections raised, particularly the lack of consultation and asked Mr Dennett if he had any comments.

Mr Dennett was unable to answer questions at this point of the meeting due to technical issues.

Objector Submission Summary:

The written summarised submission from J and R Clatworthy, Chris Bridges, M & G Developments and Mr D A Rootham, was read out as follows:

Mr & Mrs Clatworthy

·         The site is greenfield and on agricultural land, has had permission refused, involves additional works to the highway and a listed bridge, and damages the environment.

·         SMPC has not disclosed to residents that there is an alternative site.

·         There is no right to a parking space for rail travellers, and statements about having to drive to Reading increasing their carbon footprint have chosen not to use Mere Oak park and ride.

·         No supporter has identified themselves as disabled. The view that some disabled access is better than none would not be supported by those who have to use it. They would choose the safe facilities at Green Park station. The road safety of the proposed pedestrian footpath would be a disaster.

·         There is no evidential basis for the proposed number of car parking spaces, it is based on crystal ball gazing. A maximum of an additional 76 spaces would suffice as outlined by Highways.

·         Recent government announcements about removal of rail franchises calls into question GWR’s ability to fund the project.

Mr Bridges

·         The road safety is questionable with the addition of an access the other side of a high crest of the bridge gives no view of oncoming traffic and requires management by a traffic light system with up to 200 cars per hour passing at peak times to access and exit the two parking areas either side of the bridge.

·         Major works needs to be done on safe local and wider infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians to encourage more walking and cycling, for example Thatcham’s bespoke cycle routes, to connect communities with their railway stations and/or with Mere Oak park and ride. The proposal encourages car usage, drawing in from a larger catchment area putting more strain on country roads.

·         Isn’t the floodlighting and CCTV cameras needed on a greenfield site for the proposal contrary to SM NDP not to have street lighting? Why is it right to impose it on some residents?

·         Extending the existing car park for a trial period by entering into an agreement with Jewells Yard owners which would utilise a brownfield site and maybe some of the land adjoining the station car park which is low agricultural use.  This would test if parking increases and reveal how many travellers are prepared to pay the parking fee.

Mr Rootham

·         The volume of traffic raises concern about how delivery vehicles will be able to park outside my gate.

M&G Developments

·         The proposal amounts to a gross intrusion into open countryside and issues including highway safety. A lobby pack details an alternative site. SMPC did not withdraw their application having stated they would once lease terms had been agreed with GWR for the alternative site, which they have for 35 years.

·         The SM NDP sets out that options will be investigated for the additional Station parking. This has not openly taken place with contact on the alternative site rebuffed by SMPC.

·         The alternative site does not require public funding, extensive highway or listed bridge works and is not in open countryside.

Member Questions to the Objectors:

(Mr Mike Jones (M&G Developments), J and R Clatworthy and Chris Bridges were in attendance to answer question)

Councillor Graham Pask stated that he had a question for Mr Jones from M&G Developments. There had been mention of an alternative site and Councillor Pask asked for clarification on the location of this. Mr Jones reported that the site M&G Developments wished to promote was immediately adjacent to the existing car park. It was the natural extension to the railway car park and would not involve extensive work or be an intrusion on the open countryside. During discussions with Great Western Railway (GWR) it had been made clear to M&G Developments that this was the preferred location on many grounds. A pre-app had been lodged back in the summer and a favourable response had been received. Mr Jones was concerned that the current application could go ahead without Members of the Committee having knowledge of a more realistic option.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that Mr Jones had said that the Parish Council had rebuffed the proposals from M&G Developments for the alternative site. Councillor Mackinnon asked if M&G Developments had been invited to address the Parish Council in November 2019, January 2020 and March 2020 and if so queried how they had been rebuffed. Mr Jones responded that M&G Developments’ proposal had first been brought to the attention of the Parish Council in 2016, whilst the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) was being developed. Mr Jones stated that the Parish Council had not engaged with M&G Developments at this point. The NDP required consultation to take place and for alternative sites to be considered however, Mr Jones confirmed that neither the landowner nor planning consultants had been approached. When consultation had begun on the current application site, engagement only took place because M&G Developments had chosen to attend Parish Council meetings and not because they were individually approached.

Councillor Mackinnon further noted that it had been stated that the Parish Council were in breach of their NDP because other options had not been openly investigated. Councillor Mackinnon asked if the NDP required the Parish Council to openly investigate options or just investigate options. Councillor Mackinnon had been reliably informed that the Parish Council had investigated more than one option. Councillor Law felt that this was a more suitable question for Officers and the Ward Member. Mr Jones stated that whether this investigation had happened in public or in private, no-one involved in the alternative site had been approached.

Councillor Mackinnon stated that he had a question for Mr and Mrs Clatworthy. He noted in their submission they had stated that the Parish Council had failed to reveal that there was an alternative site. Councillor Mackinnon asked if public consultations had not been held where this would have been raised. Mrs Clatworthy confirmed that public consultations had taken place regarding the current application site however, no information had been provided on alternatives sites.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

(Mr Mike Dennett was in attendance to answer questions)

Mr Dennett had noted Councillor Mackinnon’s question asking if the Parish Council had consulted. The Parish Council had consulted very widely on the NDP through Parish Council meetings and events held in the library. A questionnaire had also been sent out.

Councillor Law stated that the Parish Council had been accused of only consulting on the one site and asked Mr Dennett to comment. Mr Dennett stated that the Parish Council first heard about the possible alternative site in August 2016, just after public examination of the NDP. Bell and Cornwall had written to the Council offering the site however, the plan had incorporated 12 houses as well as the parking. The site was outside of the settlement boundary and therefore it not been deemed appropriate. The Parish Council had heard from Bell and Cornwall again in July 2019 and this time a smaller development was proposed however, because the plan still incorporated six houses it was against the NDP. First communications from M&G Developments (who took over from Bell and Cornwall) was in October 2019 and by this time £30k had already been spent on the current application and M&G Developments had not provided a detailed proposal.

Supporter Submission:

The written submission from Mr Tom Pierpoint (GWR) was read out as follows:

·         Since 2005, Mortimer station has seen significantly lower growth in passenger numbers than the industry average. Existing car parking at the station is at capacity, with rail users parking on-street near the station. These factors strongly suggest the lack of available parking is supressing growth in rail use and limiting the station’s role in the local transport network.

·         GWR continue to pursue a car park expansion at Mortimer Station. To summarise from my previous letter:

·         GWR consider that the 2018 Community Survey demonstrates there is significant supressed demand for rail travel in the catchment of Mortimer Station, sufficient to justify the 150–space additional car park.

·         Since 2004/5 passenger use of Mortimer Station increased by just 3%, compared to 95% across the industry and 39% at Bramley.

·         There are comparable GWR stations where expanding car parks close to capacity has unlocked suppressed growth e.g. Kingham: 125 more spaces increased passenger numbers by 47%.

·         Recently introduced additional services on the Reading to Basingstoke line and the introduction of 4-car trains to replace the existing 2 and 3 car trains, provide additional passenger capacity.

·         Regarding the Case Officer’s report:

-       The number of car parking spaces at Newbury and Theale Stations referred to as comparable to those proposed for Mortimer, are incorrect. Upon completion of the Market Street Development, Newbury Station will have 460 spaces, not 200 with Theale increasing to just over 300 spaces not 215. 201 spaces at Mortimer would not, therefore, put the station on par with Newbury and Theale. Being over a mile from the centre of Mortimer, the station increases the relative need for car and cycle parking.

-       The Case Officer’s report also refers to station passenger numbers, which I quoted in my previous letter to demonstrate that growth in passenger numbers at Mortimer had been considerably less than the industry average over the last 15 years. The ORR station usage estimates are publically available at https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage/ which can be used to verify the statements summarised above.

-       In 6.24 the report disputes that a lack of car parking is constraining use of the railway. Kingham and Hanborough, however, are clear examples of car park capacity constraining demand and the lack of passenger growth at Mortimer along with the full car park indicate that it is a similar scenario.

-       Section 6.51 refers to lighting and CCTV. GWR seeks to meet the Park Mark standard for our car parks to ensure passengers safety. The GWR Design Guide specifies that consideration must be made to minimise light pollution for neighbouring properties and that 8M lighting columns are the maximum height, not the standard height. Through the next stages of project design, GWR and SMPC would develop a lighting and CCTV design that is appropriate for the environment and therefore we maintain that an appropriate design can be secured by condition.

·         GWR continues to support expanded car parking provision at Mortimer Station and believe that the 150-space expansion is justified, not only by the existing suppressed demand but also to meet future growth.

Member Questions to the Supporters:

(Mr Neil Kiley wasin attendance to answer questions on behalf of Mr Pierpoint)

Councillor Alan Macro noted that it had been stated that Theale Station car park would be increased to 300 spaces however, Councillor Macro was aware that this had only been agreed in principle and asked for a status update. Neil Kiley was unable to provide an answer to this question because he did not work for GWR.

Agent’s Submission:

The written submission from Katherine Miles (Pro Vision) was read out as follows:

·         Officers accept the need for 76 additional spaces but would not support development due to landscape concerns. Officers have no solution to meet the need despite clear policy support:

 

-       Core Strategy Policy ADDP6: “Improvements to the accessibility of Mortimer railway station will be sought…This will be taken forward through partnership working.”

-       Local Transport Plan Paragraph 6.6.5: “the Council will…improve car parking at rail stations in the area”.

 

·         SMPC commenced work on its NDP in 2015. The single biggest issue for the community was the lack of car-parking at Mortimer Station raised by 92% or 1006 respondents leading to Policy IS3 which supports the expansion of the car-park at the Station.

·         An independent survey in Mortimer demonstrated overwhelmingly that at least 150 more spaces were needed. GWR fully support this 150-space proposal because:

 

-        Rail travel from Mortimer (currently 175,000 annual journeys and only 51 spaces) is being significantly suppressed by parking limitations.

-       Similar rural stations have greater parking capacity and have seen a growth in rail travel as a result.

 

·         In August Officers stated that: "the commercial needs of the operator becomes a material consideration, as does the needs of Mortimer residents".

·         The Council has approved 110 homes in Mortimer and more than 250 in Burghfield. Approved Travel Plans promote use of Mortimer station, further increasing demand. 17% of survey respondents were daily users equating to at least 146 daily users from these new homes alone.

·         Mereoak is useful for off-peak journeys to Reading etc but there are delays up to 30minutes for traffic from Mortimer/Burghfield at rush-hour and is no help for passengers to Basingstoke.

·         Even if Grazeley ever goes ahead, GWR state that with the opening of Green Park station there will be no station built at Grazeley.

·         A pedestrian footpath over the road-bridge is proposed. Manual for Streets states gradients should “ideally be no more than 5%, although topography or other circumstances may make this difficult to achieve”. The inclusive mobility standards state “an 8% slope is the maximum that may be used”. This footpath is an improvement to accessibility over a relatively short distance and within the tolerances of guidance. The kerb height of 125mm can be provided.

·         A landscaping scheme will minimise the visual effect of the car-park. Existing hedgerow will be maintained at a height not less than 3.5metres. The car-park will be almost invisible from the road and there are no public footpaths from which walkers could see it. The car-park is well screened from the station by dense existing trees and hedging along the back of the Basingstoke platform. The landscaping is now within the red line.

·         SMPC has worked closely with GWR and Englefield Estate (the landowner) to procure the studies and reports on Need, Landscape, Highways, Drainage, Trees, and Ecology to deal with concerns of West Berkshire planners.

·         The Council states it supports sustainable travel initiatives – the need for the development outweighs any harm and the Committee should support this application to fulfil the NDP objective and wishes of the community.

Member Questions to the Agent:

(Ms Katherine Miles was in attendance to answer questions)

There were no questions from Members.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Graham Bridgman, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·         The three issues stated for investigation by David Pearson when the application was last considered by the Committee in August 2020 were now only two as the issue of lighting had been resolved. The remaining issues were identified need, landscaping plus the issue of the footway.

·         Regarding the number of car parking spaces, Highways had stated that the proposal would put Mortimer on a par with Newbury and Theale. This had however, been stated as incorrect by GWR.

·         The Highways approach to the demand did not properly take account of the GWR evidence under 6.17 of the report, regarding the potential for expansion in passenger numbers, if more parking was made available.

·         Councillor Bridgman suggested that GWR would not be prepared to fund a 150 space car park (or 170 in the M&G proposal) if it was not justified.

·         Regarding landscaping the main issue had been the red line. This had now been redrawn to include landscaping.

·         Regarding the footway, in the latest report under 6.71 and 6.72 the Officer continued to refer to a proposed kerb height of 50mm but seeking a height of 125mm. Pro Vision in a letter to the Council had made it clear that a kerb of 125mm could be provided and therefore this issue had been addressed.

·         Regarding the gradient, currently a disabled person would have no way of accessing the Basingstoke platform. The proposal would improve this situation by enabling some people with a disability to access the platform and therefore it was better than what was currently in place. More generally, Councillor Bridgman commented that currently it was not the gradient of the bridge that prevented people crossing on foot but rather the vehicles.

·         Councillor Bridgman referred to the identified need for Theale and stated that Mortimer was larger than Theale. If Burghfield common was also accounted for, then it was nearly three times the size of Theale. Theale had a station within walking distance of most of the village and would soon have a car park for 300 cars. Councillor Bridgman did not think it was unreasonable for Mortimer to have a station parking facility with 201 spaces.

·         Regarding the landscaping, Officers continued to refer to an over urbanisation impact. Councillor Bridgman reminded Members that Theale Primary School was outside of the settlement boundary and had not been objected to by Officers due to its urbanising impact.

·         Councillor Bridgman referred to a comment by M&G Developments and stated that if and when they came forward with an application it was likely that it would be supported. However, there was no application from M&G Developments and Councillor Bridgman did not want to see the wishes of the people of Mortimer, that were set out in the NDP, ignored.

·         To conclude Councillor Bridgman summarised that the proposal was in the NDP, was wanted by the village and promoted by the Parish Council. Councillor Bridgman could see little point in asking communities to take charge of local planning, if when they did it was ignored.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

Councillor Graham Pask asked what the difference was between the current application and the one that had been refused at appeal. Councillor Bridgman stated that firstly the orientation was different, as previously it was positioned alongside Station Road and now it was at right angles and positioned away from Station Road. The landscaping mitigated the site considerably. Secondly the large difference was that the proposal was a NDP policy. Regarding comments on urbanisation, Councillor Bridgman reminded Members that the village of Mortimer had voted in favour of the application. He accepted that the M&G Developments’ site might provide an alternative to the urbanisation of the current scheme however, no planning application had been put forward. Councillor Bridgman was fearful that the Committee could refuse the application and then no planning application would be submitted by M&G Developments. This would leave the village without a much needed facility.

Councillor Law reminded the Committee that the current application needed to be considered on its own merits.

Councillor Geoff Mayes stated that he had discussed this proposal with various local people. He felt that Councillor Bridgman was slightly off beat with some of his concerns. Councillor Mayes was very concerned about the bridge and the path over the bridge and he would raise this with Officers.  

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Law asked Officers to clarify the position regarding the alternative site that had been mentioned. Councillor Law also asked Officers to comment on the safety of pedestrians using the bridge. It had been stated that Pro Vision had provided figures regarding the gradient, which had not been included within the report and Councillor Law sought clarity from Officers on this.

Regarding the alternative site, Lydia Mather confirmed that a pre-app had been received however, no formal application for the site had been received. In terms of history Lydia Mather confirmed that the pre-app had been for car parking only and not housing.

In response to Councillor Law’s question about the bridge, Mr Paul Goddard stated that the Highways technical reason for refusal was detailed on page 69 of the report. At the previous Committee there had been two concerns raised, firstly the height of the kerb over the bridge and secondly the gradient which was 1/7 or 14%. Mr Goddard reported that the applicant was now prepared to provide a kerb that was 125mm in height. Paul Goddard had however, not received any amended plans or details to overcome this or the gradient issue. Acceptable gradients ranged between five and eight percent and some of the footway proposed was at a gradient of over 14%. When designing new infrastructure, Mr Goddard felt that it should comply with standards. It was possible that these issues could be overcome with amended plans. However as amended plans had not been submitted the reason for refusal on page 69 remained.

Councillor Mayes stated that his main issue was with the bridge and traffic approaching from both the west and east. Peak hours were between three and four o’clock where there were about 200/250 vehicles per hour. If traffic lights were to be erected at the bridge, Councillor Mayes asked if this would cause traffic to back up causing problems accessing the entrance to the car park and the mini roundabout. Mr Goddard reported that the Highways Consultants working on behalf of the applicant had created a traffic model of the signals over the bridge using Linsig software and it had been confirmed that the system should work adequately and not cause traffic to queue. As reported previously however, Mr Goddard added a caveat because there was uncertainty as to how much traffic would travel to the area because there were no calculations conducted on the parking spaces required.

Councillor Mayes further questioned if Highways Officers had used data provided by the Beech Hill Survey. Mr Goddard reported that they had not because the Linsig was the applicant’s model. Councillor Law queried if the Highway’s Officer had reservations regarding the applicant’s model. Paul Goddard confirmed that he had reservations because no-one had calculated the likely parking demand from the catchment areas.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the table at the top of page 61 of the report, which detailed information on the passengers using the train station. He was surprised to see that only 60% of Mortimer district were within the catchment of Mortimer Station and asked Officers to clarify this. Councillor Mackinnon was also surprised to see the number of people in employment and felt that the assessment could be inaccurate.  Mr Goddard reported that the assessment had been the best he was able to achieve to obtain a projected number of car parking spaces required. He had used information from the surveys. To respond to Councillor Mackinnon’s question regarding Mortimer district, Mr Goddard confirmed that the census district information had been used and included the travel to work data. The Mortimer census district went up to Aldermaston Wharf and it was unlikely that people living there would use Mortimer Station. Therefore this was why only 60% of the district was within the Mortimer Station catchment. There were three census districts within the Mortimer Station catchment and Mr Goddard went on to explain the data within the table on page 61 in more detail. The survey had shown that for Mortimer 55% of people travelled to the station and left their cars in the car park, with the other 45% of people being dropped off. Population inflation had also been accounted for and had led to the conclusion that there was the need for 129 car parking spaces including the 53 or so already present. Officers were not opposed to additional parking at the station but the question was whether the numbers within the current proposal were justified and the site was in the right location.

Councillor Law asked for further clarification on Councillor Mackinnon’s question as to whether leisure travel had been accounted for. Mr Goddard confirmed that 20% represented non employment/leisure travel.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the Burghfield column on the table and queried those who did not travel daily. Mr Goddard stated that he tried to include these in the 20%. Questions asked in the Statement of Community Involvement had been very unclear. Councillor Mackinnon acknowledged that a lot of assumptions had been made.

Councillor Law reported that there were three issues. The first issue was conflicting reports on car parking capacity. Secondly landscaping had been an issue however, work had taken place on this. Thirdly there were conflicting views on pedestrian safety but it was possible that these could be addressed. Officers however, still had concerns.

Debate:

Councillor Pask commented that it was a controversial planning application. He stated that normally if an application had been dismissed at appeal then consideration needed to be given as to why it had returned to Committee. For the current application this question had been answered by Councillor Bridgman. Councillor Pask felt that the application was a compromise. Members were often not aware of pre-app discussions and had to judge the application in front of them. The main potential issue was the narrowing of the road bridge in terms of safety. Councillor Pask was not concerned about the gradient. Many conflicting issues had been raised regarding the application. He did not feel that the application would have an urbanising effect as it would be protected by the landscape. Lighting and other issues could be conditioned. On balance Councillor Pask was leaning towards a positive conclusion on the application. If the Committee refused the application an alternative planning application might not come forward.

Councillor Pask added that the danger at the current site had not been mentioned. There was often a high level of on road car parking, which was dangerous. Councillor Pask was minded to approve the application at this stage.

Councillor Macro stated that his ward had been mentioned during discussions. Other potential sites for Theale Primary School had been ruled out due to the impact on the countryside. Regarding Theale Station, a bid had been submitted to improve the station including increasing the size of the car park and had been granted conditional approval subject to further modelling.

Councillor Macro referred to the applicant’s calculations. He believed that only a third of the catchment area had been assessed and then multiplied by three. Councillor Macro felt that criticisms of the Officers calculations could also be aimed at the applicants. Councillor Macro expressed his discontent with the application. He was not in favour of the use of traffic lights and was concerned about the gradient as those with a physical disability could have a great deal of difficulty trying to use it. Councillor Macro had approached the site from the Swallowfield direction recently and felt that the proposal would have an urbanising effect from this direction. There would also be a 1.8m fence, which Councillor Macro felt would be intrusive along with the lighting which would impact on dark skies. Councillor Macro proposed that the Members support the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Woodhams.

Councillor Mayes referred to the comment made by Councillor Pask regarding road side parking. This had increased when Network Rail implemented parking charges at the current car park. Secondly further car parking need could have been caused by the cancellation of the minibus service by West Berkshire Council and the Parish Council.  A further car park would only generate money for Network Rail.

Councillor Stewart stated that she was in favour of the proposal. She had been divided regarding the number of spaces however, was no longer concerned about this. Regarding urbanisation there was already a station, car park and industrial park on the site and therefore Councillor Stewart was not overly concerned about this. Regarding the bridge, there was a similar set up in Burghfield and it allowed safer passage for passengers and therefore Councillor Stewart did not feel this was an issue but rather a positive point. Councillor Stewart concurred with the view of Councillor Pask in that she supported the application.

Councillor Royce Longton stated that there was a desperate need for increased parking spaces at the station. He would have preferred to see the car park built as an extension to what existed however, this had not been proposed and therefore he was in support of the present application.

Councillor Mackinnon concurred with Councillors Stewart and Longton. Mortimer Station was well known for being difficult to park at and this was off putting for commuters. On road parking was a serious issue and there was a desperate need for an increased parking facility. He noted the points raised about the footway and the bridge however, on balance he supported the proposal.

Councillor Law invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Macro, seconded by Councillor Woodhams and at the vote the motion was refused.

Councillor Pask proposed that the proposal be approved, against Officer recommendation including the following conditions and this was seconded by Councillor Stewart:

·         Lighting to be kept to a minimal safe acceptable low level.

·         A revised plan be submitted with a 125mm kerb on the bridge.

·         The gradient be eased if possible.

·         Landscaping to be carried out to minimise the impact of urbanisation.

Mrs Mather ran through further conditions that would need to be included within the application. Mr Dray added that the finalisation of conditions would be delegated to Officers if the proposal was approved. Regarding lighting Councillor Law stated that sensor lighting would not be acceptable for the location and he would prefer to see timed lighting.

Councillor Law asked Members of the Committee to vote on the motion proposed by Councillor Pask, seconded by Councillor Stewart and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to conditions (delegated to officers).