Agenda item

Proposal:	Removal of derelict garages and erection of 2 no houses and 2 no flats, together with associated landscaping and parking.
Location:	Land Adjoining, 11 Pond Close, Newbury.
Applicant:	A, D and E Property Ltd.
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of this report.

 

(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 where Item 4(1) had been discussed.  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 Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Local Ward Member. 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.)

(Councillors Carolyne Culver and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01911/FULD in respect of the land adjoining, 11 Pond Close, Newbury.

2.     Ms Cheyanne Kirby, Planning Officer, 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 in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, (Team Leader, Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the proposal had been considered on three previous occasions, and only refused on highway grounds as a legal agreement needed to be submitted before roads could be widened. It was not refused for any other highway reasons. It should then also be noted that the current proposal was smaller than previous submissions. Seven spaces were required to comply with the Council’s car parking standards, and nine spaces were proposed. Cycle storage was provided along with it electric vehicle (EV) charging points. No new accesses were provided with this proposal.

4.     Mr Goddard noted that Pond Close was narrow, at just over four metres wide. To alleviate this concern, it was proposed to widen a section of 30m at the front of the site. Existing dwellings to the south had onsite car parking, however nos. 11 and 12 parked on the street. Therefore to allow for space for emergency vehicles, Highways Officers insisted that Pond Close be widened along this section to 4.8m, which was the standard width for all new estate roads. There was also to be a 1.5m wide footway for pedestrians of along the entirety of the frontage. He would expect a maximum of 20 vehicle movements a day for the site and suggested that this was not a significant impact and he reminded Members of paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), that stated that planning applications should only be refused on highway grounds if the impact was severe. In his view, he did not regard the impact as severe due to the mitigations made.

5.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, Ms Lorraine Cladingboel and Ms Rachel Reeves, objectors, Mr Andrew House (A, D and E Property Ltd), applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

6.     Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Newbury Town Council (NTC) strongly objected to the development, due to the overdevelopment and highways and parking issues, which would limit emergency vehicle access.

·         NTC observed that this was the fourth application over the last 10 years and they had great sympathy the residents who felt that Pond Close could not accommodate a development of this nature due to the parking difficulties and limited access it would cause.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

7.     Councillor Hilary Cole queried how parking would present an issue when more than sufficient parking was being proposed. Mr Foot noted that there was a lot of on-street parking at the moment and it was likely that potential residents would have more than one car, or visitors, and that the road was extremely narrow.

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Mr Foot to expand on his knowledge of the area as originally designed. Mr Foot believed that the estate had been built in the 1950s when cars ownership was less common and cars were smaller. Before being fenced off, the garage site had provided current residents park with off-road parking.

Objector Representation

9.     Ms Rachel Reeve and Ms Lorraine Cladingboel in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The residents of Pond Close collectively objected in the strongest terms to the development.

·         The applicant had never been approached the residents for consultation.

·         Residents wanted a safe place to live.

·         The Close was very narrow single lane with one entrance and exit point, and visibility was poor due to the slight bend at the entrance.

·         If the application were to be approved, the close would become a dangerous, claustrophobic corridor, with drivers in danger of meeting a vehicle coming the other way. Pedestrians would be forced to walk in the road as cars would have to park fully on the pavement.

·         There were many young children living in the Close who would be put at risk.

·         The proposed site area was used by vehicles to manoeuvre around cars parked in the street.

·         The original planners had provided a passing space in addition to the garages.

·         Until the fence was erected the site was regularly used by residents, visitors and tradesmen as a parking area, passing space or turning area.

·         It was a crucial space for residents, who looked after it, contrary to the views of the applicant. It was only after the fence had been erected that the land has fallen into a state of decay.

·         The applicant suggested that all residents had off-road parking, but this was not the case. Some residents had created off-road parking, at their own expense, however not all residents would be able to do this. The home owners directly opposite the site that owned a camper van and transit van, would not be able to move their vehicles should the development go ahead. Existing residents would be negatively impacted.

·         It was misleading to describe the application as smaller than previous rejected proposals, as the size and position of the buildings was the same, which raised the same concerns as before. The occupancy of the flats would be higher, with flat one housing six people and flat two housing five people. It was likely that rather than families, the flats would house multi-occupancy tenants, who would realistically each own a car. There would not be enough parking spaces to accommodate this number of people. Residents felt this would pose a serious and genuine threat to their safety.

·         The proposed application included a passing point, however the number of dwellings would mean that the area would rapidly become a place to park extra cars.

·         Whilst the applicant had provided electric charging points the likelihood of injury occurring to an adult or child from near-silent vehicle emerging from restricted view parking spaces and driveways would be very high.

·         The Close was very family orientated, with no flats in the Close or surrounding area. The proposed housing was not in keeping with the residential type of area.

·         As with all the other applications, residents were concerned about access for large vehicles including emergency services as there was no turning circle at the end of the Close.

·         The Close was very prone to flooding and had experienced water pipe issues. The addition of more dwellings would exacerbate these issues.

·         They were also concerned about the huge inconvenience the building works will create for all residents. The likelihood being that they would be trapped as there was only one access point.

·         They were not experts, but were honest, hardworking taxpaying citizens who chose a quiet place to live and were being subject to endless planning applications which will cause irreversible damage to the Close and be detrimental to the safety of its residents.

·         This development was too big and the financial gain that the applicant will achieve would be nice for him, but the legacy of his greed would be the abject misery for the residents of Pond Close, as tensions would grow between a close-knit community, as accessibility and parking were permanently reduced, and their safety forever compromised.

Member Questions to the Objector

10.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked what had led residents to believe that the flats might be multiple-occupancy households. Ms Reeve responded that it was part of the application, and she doubted whether families would buy a flat.

11.  Councillor Vickers sought further clarification as to whether the residents considered parking to be part of their general amenity. Ms Reeve responded that it was. Ms Cladingboel responded that residents had always rented the garages from the Council, until they became derelict. They had then parked on the site. However as it had been fenced-off they could no longer park there. They had tried hard to get cars off the road, but it was now difficult to walk on the pavement as cars were parked there.

12.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted that when he had visited the site in the past springs had flooded the area. He inquired whether this was still a regular occurrence. Ms Reeve responded that it was, and that as the new development was at a low point in the road, water would run off the surrounding land into the site. It was called Pond Close for a reason.

13.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked if there was a known incident of an emergency vehicle having difficulty entering the road. Ms Cladingboel responded that the applicant’s fence had had to be moved back to allow an ambulance to enter, as it could not get access. Councillor Hooker further queried whether there had been any problems before the erection of the fence. Ms Cladingboel responded that there had not.

14.  Councillor Culver noted that there was a turning area on the road opposite no. 21, and asked if that was sufficient. Ms Reeve responded that it was not designed as a turning circle and was more of a “three, four or five point turn” area, depending on who many cars were parked on the road.

Applicant Representation

15.  Mr Andrew House in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         This application would deliver a combination of two bedroomed houses, and three bedroomed flats, thereby enhancing the residential stock in this area of Newbury.

·         All had been designed to be affordable, possibly for first time buyers, and would utilise a brown field site which was currently unused and an eyesore detracting from Pond Close.

·         The application took direction from the reasons for refusal of previous applications, by reducing the level of housing density being applied for, increasing the amount of off-road parking, and increasing the area of amenity space provision.

·         The site had redundant concrete garages and an extensive area of concrete hard-standing. This would be transformed into a well-designed development, including trees, grass and soft landscaping as well as taking account of the bio-diversity requirements

·         The housing design had been considered for style, positioning and the height of buildings within Pond Close. As well as the outlook of housing backing onto the development from properties fronting Elizabeth Avenue.

·         The proposed buildings were subservient to surrounding properties in Pond Close.

·         The development would provide high quality accommodation, comprised of a pair of two bedroomed semi-detached houses, and a pair of three bedroomed flats. Each had an EV charging point and two dedicated parking spaces. An additional visitor space was included, fronting the highway that would be widened for an extended length with the insertion of raised kerb stones to enhance pedestrian safety on that footway.

·         This application acknowledged the unopposed detail of the previous scheme remaining unchanged in design, parking access, landscaping and bio-diversity all of which had been approved by the Council’s consultees.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

16.  Councillor Abbs asked for clarification as to when and why the garages on the site had become disused. Mr House noted that those who had been renting garages were asked to vacate prior to the land being sold at auction. Mr House understood that there had been a minimal number of people using the garages. He also noted that the Planning Inspector at one of the previous hearings, had stated that parking should be prohibited on the site.

17.  Councillor Abbs queried what level of sustainability would be built to. Mr House responded unsure of what the standard was called, but that that the architect had confirmed that the build would be to a high quality standard. Councillor Abbs further queried whether the applicant was aware of Policy CS15. Mr House responded that he was not.

18.  Councillor Culver posed three questions:

                      i.        How many of the proposed flats would be affordable?

                    ii.        What kind of family would require three double bedrooms?

                   iii.        Where was the raised kerb situated?

19.  Mr House responded to question three by explaining that footway would be 1.5m wide, and there would be raised sections in front of the properties where vehicle would not be able to transverse from the highway to the property. His response to question two was that the architect had designed the scheme to mitigate the reasons for refusal of a previous application. As everything else was acceptable to the Planning Inspector, in terms of design and access, rather than totally redesign building, the architect reduced the number of flats from four to two, therefore creating space to allow for larger bedrooms. With regards to affordability, the units were smaller than the general houses within the area, they would be more affordable for a greater number of people.

Ward Member Representation

20.  Councillor David Marsh in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         He wanted to speak in support of the residents of Pond Close. The residents were not NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard), the site had been allowed to become an eyesore, and were supportive of work that could make it more attractive. However sadly, this development was not appropriate.

·         Pond Close was built in the 1950’s the garage area was mandatory and for many years provided parking and a passing place/turning area. He considered that the Council, as the original landowner before it was taken over by Sovereign, had a duty of care to residents not to make their lives worse with additional traffic and parking problems.

·         It was much the narrowest residential road in his Ward. It was basically single lane. The proposed widening, in his view, would not resolve the problem.

·         The problem was much worse for emergency vehicles and waste trucks, which had to reverse the length of the Close to exit as there was no longer a turning space. He considered that the images presented were misleading as they showed no parking cars on the road.

·         Councillor Marsh drew the Committees attention to the applicant’s admission that there would be space for five or six people in each flat. He believed that the number of parking spaces was not sufficient for this number of people.

·         Some residents had turned their front gardens into drive-ways, however those directly opposite the site were owned and let by Sovereign. The residents were therefore unable to make changes to the properties and had to park on the pavement. This meant that pedestrians were forced into walking into the road to get past parked vehicles. In his view this issue would be exacerbated.

·         Another issue was that should the sight lines were poor for those exiting the site.

·         Previous applications for this site had been rejected following similar discussions. The applicant had not taken the opportunity to scale back his design, instead he has reduced the number of buildings below the affordable homes threshold, but had increased the number of people that could live in the development. He urged the Committee to refuse the over development.

21.  Councillor Abbs in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         Councillor Abbs considered that the applicant was performing a magic trick to make it look as if the application met the Council’s policies, however he doubted that changing a 42m parking strip to residential use could meet the Council’s standards.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

22.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

23.  Councillor Vickers referred to the Update Report and asked whether a Condition to provide a Car Club might be relevant to this site, as it had been applied to a large strategic site. The site was built prior to the creation of the PI parking policy, and he queried whether the application should now be looked at with this policy in mind. Mr Till offered the view that the Car Club was used as an offset contribution where there was a shortfall of parking in urban areas. Highways Officers considered that there was no shortfall in parking in this application. In terms of policy PI, this referred to parking to meet the requirements of the site. It did not refer to offsetting parking to facilitate mitigation of what were historic parking problems associated with non-planning issues, those being land ownership and transfer. Mr Goddard stated that a Car Club was a good idea, however he reminded Members that they should consider the proposal before them, and whether it complied with the Council’s parking standards.

24.  Councillor Vickers raised a question regarding the term “general amenity” and the Planning Inspectors ruling at the last appeal that the application should be refused, as there was over development caused by loss of general amenity. He queried whether general amenity meant the loss of existing parking, and should a new development mitigate the harm caused by the loss of parking. Mr Till commented that it was arguably a matter for debate.

25.  Mrs Armour responded that the legislation regarding Section 106, was clear in that it had to be the harm of the development, and that Members should bear in mind whether or not the development was approved the owner could still restrict parking on the site.

26.  Councillor Barnett referred to the Update Report and asked whether the width of the road at its narrowest point was still 3.9m. Mr Goddard confirmed that the measurement had not changed.

27.  Councillor Barnett further questioned Officers regarding the north side of the site and affected residents in Elizabeth Avenue, however looking at the site he queried whether the house affected by the dip in the land was backing onto Woodridge. Miss Kirby confirmed that the dwelling visible on site was 49 Elizabeth Avenue.

28.  Councillor Clive Hooker queried the lack of a consultation response from SuDs, and that the report stated that there was no risk of flooding. However, the objector had mentioned that a spring emerged on the site. He was concerned by the lack of response and the generalisation in terms of how the flooding would be overcome. Mr Till explained that the flooding categorisation under the Environment Agency's flood maps was on the basis of risk of flooding. It was important to note that just because an area was in Flood Zone 1, it did not mean that it would not flood but that it was at the least risk of flooding. Many of the areas that flooded in 2007 were in Flood Zone 1, but experienced an extreme rainfall event. The important thing to note in respect of the lack of SuDs response, which he agreed was unfortunate as it was an issue residents, was that SuDs did respond to the 2020 application which was a nigh on identical scheme in its built form. In that case, they raised no objections and recommendation of a comprehensive drainage condition. He also noted that the provision of a comprehensive scheme of SuDs requires that calculations were provided for an extreme rainfall event and that all onsite surface water was addressed on site, dealt with onsite and did not make its way into the local are to compound flooding problems. The starting point for SuDs conditions was to seek a betterment in the existing situation where there was previously developed land. In that respect, that there were no concerns regarding flood risk in the area.

29.  Councillor Hooker asked for clarification of the flooding risk presented by rising springs. Mr Till responded that the only available information was the Environment Agency’s Flood Map. Officers were not able to provide details of the rising spring, however he could confirm that it had not been identified as a critical drainage area, where there were factors that would compound to excess flooding issues elsewhere.

30.  Councillor Abbs noted that there was a target of an average of 1.5 car parking spaces per home in West Berkshire, and asked if it held any weight in regards to the application. Mr Goddard explained that these were the old national parking standards from 1993. West Berkshire Councils parking standards were updated and became live in May 2017 and replaced the national standards. Policy PI suggests that for a three bedroomed flat two spaces would be provided, and for a three bedroomed house two point five spaces should be provided. The proposal complies with the Council’s parking standards.

31.  Councillor Abbs noted that there were no yellow lines on the road and asked how parking enforcement would be managed. The Chairman questioned whether Officers were content that cars parked to the south in the driveways would have sufficient space to pull out without parking restrictions. Mr Goddard responded that there were no restrictions planned. The widening of 4.8m had been designed to allow residents to continue parking on the road. It was wide enough to allow a larger vehicle to pass, and was the measurement for all new estate roads. There was an existing issue for emergency vehicles servicing 20 dwellings, it would now serve 24, but at least it would be easier to pass the parked cars as the road would be widened.

32.  Councillor Abbs felt that the point was being missed. The widening did not cover all of Pond Close. Mr Goddard agreed that it was only in the areas that vehicles were parked, as further down residents had private driveways. Councillor Abbs offered the view that there were some houses that did not have off-road parking that were on the narrowest point of entry in Pond Close. He was concerned how larger vehicles would gain access at the entry point without any parking enforcement measures in place, and asked whether safety had been taken into account in this spot. Mr Goddard explained that this was an existing problem and was not caused by the proposed development. He asked Members to consider whether four additional properties would make the situation worse for the existing twenty homes.

33.  Councillor Culver queried whether the emergency services were consulted on the application. Miss Kirby responded that they were not consulted, and that responses from this consultee were rare. She explained that it was the responsibility of Council’s Highways Department to assess whether emergency vehicles could gain access to the road. Mr Till reiterated that it was the Local Highway Authority’s responsibility to assess where vehicles could gain access and that it was not the norm to consult with the Emergency services on an application of this scale.

34.  Councillor Culver asked whether the removal of what looked like a brickwork bollard could be added as a condition, as it was a significant obstruction. Mr Till responded that planning conditions could not added on matters that were outside of the applicant’s ownership or control.

35.  Councillor Culver wished to confirm with officers the elements of the widened road, that in some places there would be raised kerbs for the benefit pedestrians, and in others lowered kerbs so cars could enter the new houses. Mr Goddard confirmed that where there was not a parking space there would be a full height kerb, and where there was a parking space there would be a dropped kerb.

36.  Councillor Culver queried whether there were any regulations regarding indoor amenity. She noted that the design was for a 95 m² footprint for a three bedroomed house, for six people and that this would not afford those individuals a large area of indoor amenity. Mr Till confirmed that there were no locally adopted standards or floor space standards, however there were national standards that officers applied when reviewing an application, and it was his understanding that these proposed works were in the region of the national standards in terms of indoor floor space.

37.  Councillor Hooker drew attention to the council’s recent initiative to encourage people not to park on pavements and queried whether taking away possible parking space along the front of the development would exacerbate the situation. Mr Goddard explained that in his opinion the option to park had already been removed as the land was private and vehicles did not have the right to park on it.

38.  Councillor Abbs stated that there was nothing in the application that eased the situation at the entrance to the Close. Mr Goddard reiterated that difficulties in the first stretch of Pond Close was an existing issue that the emergency vehicles already have to negotiate to serve the existing dwellings.

39.  Councillor Jeff Cant expressed the view that there were long-standing issues with parking and access in Pond Close. The application complied with the parking and highways requirement of the council policies and was not, in a planning sense adding to the issue. Mr Goddard concurred that the proposal did comply with the parking standards and would not add to the parking issue, but would improve matters for emergency vehicles as it would provide a wider section of public highway and a 1.5m wide footway.

40.  Councillor Vickers posited that the land was private, however its use class, which was one of parking for the existing residents, did not change until a new development was allowed. Mr Till advised that it was important to avoid confusing the ideas of private ownership and use class. The use class was residential and it was previously development land, and that was its planning use. In terms of whether it was used for parking or for residential development, the planning did not change. The historic issue of private ownership that keeps being referred back to, was not something that planning officers could seek to address.

Debate

41.  Councillor Abbs stated that he was not inclined to approve the application. He considered that the basic questions of safety and potential flooding had not been answered and felt that the residents did not deserve the development.

42.  Councillor Cant had considerable sympathy for the residents at the loss of a piece of land that had been used for parking, and where the owner wished to develop it, and the inconvenience that this was causing. However, the Highways Officer had been clear in advising that these difficulties would continue, whether or not the application was approved. He saw no coherent practical planning reason to refuse the application.

43.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that she was sat on the Committee in 2012 when an application on the site was first considered, and all the same arguments had been discussed. The site was a derelict now and had been in 2012, and had been under different ownership. It was a brownfield site and therefore the presumption was in favour of development, and although residents had been used to parking on the land, Members had to bear in mind the owner was entitled to fence it even if they were not going to redevelop it. However, she was disappointed that the applicant had reduced the number of dwellings to less than five, in order to not have to provide affordable housing, and instead had proposed two flats capable of being houses of multiple occupation. She would prefer to see a new application which delivered a more appropriate housing for the location as it was self-evident from looking at the number of proposals that this was a site that was difficult to develop. She understood the applicant wanted financial gain but had to bear in mind the amenity of the resident and she felt that the proposal was not the right development for this site. She accepted the officers had given it great consideration and respected their judgement, however she felt that she could not support the application.

44.  The Chairman concurred with Councillor Hilary Cole, noting that there had been a number of applications on the site. He asked Members to bear in mind that the only issue the Planning Inspector had raised at the appeal for the previous application was the lack of affordable housing.

45.  Councillor Vickers commented that the former garage site was land which had been allocated for parking the cars belonging to the residents of Pond Close, and had remained as part of that general amenity for some time. He felt it was not right to take it away from them. He noted the lack of a local or national policy that distinguished between land used for communal, residential parking, from general brown field land, and the usefulness of car clubs.

46.  He further stated that during the meeting where the first application was discussed, an objector had said, “…was time wasted moving cars would cost lives”. The previous owners, Sovereign had deprived their tenants use of the parking space and at the appeal, the Planning Inspector had used the loss of general amenity as one of the reasons for refusal. However, Councillor Vickers did not understand why he also stated that it would not be reasonable to require any re-provision of the unauthorised parking or garage space as part of the proposal. Since the previous proposals, there has been various changes to policy. He noted there were 26 spaces off-road, and therefore under policy P1, 40 to 50 spaces would be needed for the existing number of residents, so the under provision for parking for the whole Close would be between 10 and 20 spaces short. If it were necessary for new developments to have to meet policy P1 requirements, then he queried how it could be reasonable to achieve this by taking away the same standard of parking from existing residents.

47.  He believed that the application should be refused, and Members should expect a proposal which had some new housing, but which considered the needs of the existing residents. If Members did not want to refuse the application then perhaps they could consider condition that the spare space be made available for general parking. He felt that this was about more than just the site of the development and that this situation would reoccur all over the district in areas of this kind and a policy was needed to ensure that any re-development did not harm any general amenity of the existing residents.

48.  Mr Till wished to inject a word of caution. There had been an appeal decision in February 2021 on what was practically an identical scheme. The Planning Inspector did not take the view that parking and amenity concerns were relevant to the issue or contrary to policy. He refused the application on affordable housing concerns alone. Mr Till added that in terms of the 2012 decision, the changes to national and local policy were so vast that the reasons given then would not be relevant to a decision being taken today.  Mr Till asked that if members were minded to refuse the application, they should provide clear reasons for the decision to do so, and that they be formulated on the basis of the current policy position.

49.  Councillor Barnett noted that circumstances had not changed, even if policies had. The road was too narrow, was difficult to access, and was built at a time of few cars and readily available public transport access. If the development were to be occupied by multiple adults, it would generate a large number of additional cars on the road, which would adversely affect the quality of life for residents. Councillor Barnett added that as a derelict, brownfield site, it needed development, however the space was not adequate for the type of buildings being proposed. Councillor Barnett added that he believed there were several incidents of flooding caused by springs, and had grave concerns that a development would be subject to additional flooding.

50.  Councillor Abbs proposed to reject officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for reasons of safety, lack of net zero carbon homes, high risk of occupancy as a HMO, loss of general amenity, and issues around SuDs. This was seconded by Councillor Vickers.

51.  The Chairman noted that he was nervous of the Members proposal, as he felt a refusal would be judged to be against policy and that officers had given very clear reasons as to why permission should be granted, however he accepted the proposal.

52.  Mr Till stated that the Council’s policy did not seek zero carbon for minor residential developments. However, it did have provision for major residential developments, and that was currently being contested in the Sandleford appeal. Therefore, he was concerned that if Members were resolved to progress and include it as a reason for refusal, then they would be directly contrary to the council’s Local Plan policies.

53.  Councillor Abbs read from Policy CS15, which had been not been tested, to demonstrate that it did not distinguish between minor and major residential development. Mr Till responded that the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) was a separate issue from net zero carbon within Policy CS15. The policy, which had since been disbanded, sought compliance with the CSH separately and applied a requirement for a reduction of CO² emissions for major developments only. Councillor Abbs responded that he read the CSH with regards to level 6 it stated a home would have to be completely zero carbon. He was struggling to understand why it could not be used in this instance. Mr Till explained that the CSH no longer exists, and the renewable energy requirements of Policy CS15 stood apart from its reference to CSH.

54.  Mrs Armour asked for clarification on the safety reason for refusal and whether Members were stating that the proposed development would make safety worse. Councillor Abbs confirmed that this was the case. She also queried whether the existing SuDs condition was not sufficient to mitigate concerns. Councillor Vickers stated that if the vote were carried he would explain what he had found in the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that had resulted in the reason for refusal in this area.

55.  Mr Goddard stated that he was concerned about citing highway safety as a reason for refusal as there had been three, larger proposals on this site that had been considered by a Planning Inspector and on none of these occasions had highway safety been raised as a concern. He was concerned how this could be defended at appeal. He reminded Members that the proposal complied with the council’s parking standard, no residents parking is being lost, off-road parking was being provided, and the road was being improved by being widened. He was concerned that the decision would be overturned at appeal and costs be awarded against the council.

56.  Mr Till again queried the reason for Members concern that the existing SuDs condition was not sufficient, as at appeal officers would have to defend the decision. Councillor Abbs stated that he had proposed the reason on the suggestion of another Councillor, and was happy for it to be removed. Councillor Vickers concurred agreed as he considered the current condition to be adequate. He felt that Members might want to discuss the matter before discharge, as there was not an extant Flood Risk Management Strategy. Councillor Hooker concurred with the decision.

57.  Councillor Culver queried whether insufficient consideration of the cumulative impact of flooding could be used a valid reason for refusal, noting that the presence of the springs had not been considered. Mr Till stated that it would be possible to cite this as a reason for refusal, however he was concerned that the evidence provided was by word-of-mouth, and not by any technical survey that indicated that there was a cumulative concern with flooding in the area. The technical survey carried out by the Environment Agency categorised the land as being in Flood Zone 1, and would indicate that there was not a cumulative risk of flooding in the area.

58.  Mrs Armour sought a summary of the reasons for refusal before the vote was taken. Mr Till summarised the reasons:

·         Failure to provide a zero carbon development, and therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy CS15.

·         The four houses would unduly increase the risk to highway safety associated with the access to Pond Close.

·         The imposition of restrictions on parking that the four houses would cause would unduly impact on the amenity and quality of life of local residents.

59.  Councillor Vickers recounted the following reason quoting from the NPPF 2019:

·         Overdevelopment as it failed to take local circumstances into account to reflect the needs of the area i.e. the existing lack of off-street parking for existing residents. It was in effect removing a general amenity, which could not be met elsewhere.

60.  Councillor Abbs agreed that these were the reasons. Councillor Vickers added the caveat that NPPF 11c was not an up-to-date plan and policy P1 was part of the Local Plan, but was not part of previous decisions. He believed policy P1 was a material consideration in the NPPF.

61.  Mr Till had concerns regarding the unnecessary loss of facilities aspect, as it was referring to historic use of the site, land ownership and transfer. He advised that Members should be mindful that when dealing with a planning application they should deal with the site as it was now and could not address matters that were created as problems by previous owners of the site in terms of land transfer. He would be concerned regarding adding that to a refusal reason.

62.  The Chairman asked if Councillor Vickers would be happy to remove this as a reason for refusal. Councillor Vickers said he would not.

[Councillor Abbs spoke but could not be heard as his mic was not turned on]

63.  Mr Till advised the Chairman that should Members refuse the application, he would be seeking guidance from Senior Management as to whether the application should be considered at District Planning Committee.

64.  Councillor Hooker asked for clarification as to the need to refer the decision to the District Planning Committee. Mr Till explained that he was concerned that the decision would be contrary to the requirements of policy P1, and the NPPF, in terms of taking into account matters that were beyond the remit of the Local Plan policies, and planning in general, regarding land ownership.

65.  Councillor Cant believed that no reasons for refusals offered were valid in planning terms, despite the moral high ground, and it would be defeated at appeal. The Chairman concurred.

66.  Councillor Abbs asked whether further debate points should be made at this stage, now a proposal had been made. Mrs Armour stated that they should not, but many points made were informative.

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

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons

Highway safety and general amenity: Pond Close is a narrow residential road serving a number of properties. Parking is tightly constrained in the vicinity of the application site, a situation that has been compounded by the historic loss of private residential parking on the location of the application site and limited alternative parking provision, resulting in the need for residents to utilise on street parking for their vehicles. The proposed works would result in an increased demand for parking, with the size of rooms in the proposed flats resulting in potential multiple occupation, overdeveloping the site and increasing the demand for parking associated with the development beyond the number of parking spaces provided, and the reduction in on street parking reducing the general amenity of existing residential occupants of Pond Close, detracting from the quality of life of existing residents and compounding existing access problems for residents’ vehicles and emergency vehicles, endangering highway safety. The proposed works would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy P1 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Housing Site Allocations DPD (2017) which specifies that there may be exceptional circumstances where there is a case for providing parking that does not accord with the levels set out in the policy, and notes in its supporting text that levels of parking provision and the way in which they are designed are important factors in creating good quality environments. The proposed works would fail to meet the requirements of Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012, which requires development to make good provision for access by all transport modes and to make a positive contribution to the quality of life in West Berkshire. Furthermore, the proposed works would fail to take account of local circumstances contrary to paragraph 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would result in the loss of valued facilities for parking for existing residents, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 93 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Zero carbon development: The proposed works would fail to provide zero carbon residential development and are therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 which requires, inter alia, that all residential development shall achieve Zero Carbon from 2016. Furthermore the proposed works would be contrary to the requirements of Part 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future by shaping places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and supports renewable and low carbon energy.