To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 21/01911/FULD Land Adjoining, 11 Pond Close, Newbury

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 - Development and Regulation to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reason set out at part 8 of the officer’s report.

 

Minutes:

                (Councillors Phil Barnett and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Planning and Highways Committee on Newbury Town Council which had considered this application. As their interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

72.  The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/01911/FULD in respect of Land Adjoining 11 Pond Close, Newbury. Approval had been sought for the removal of derelict garages and the erection of two houses and two flats, together with associated landscaping and parking, and had been refused by this Committee at its meeting on 3 November 2021 for (1) Highway safety and general amenity, and (2) zero carbon development reasons.

73.  Following advice from planning policy and an accompanying legal counsel’s opinion regarding the correct interpretation of Policy CS15 under the current policy context, the Committee was being invited to consider whether a fresh resolution would be required in respect of the zero carbon development reason for refusal. It was not proposed to re-open the debate regarding the Highway safety and general amenity reason for refusal.

74.  Mr Simon Till, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. Mr Till highlighted the concerns regarding the second reason for refusal, in that it was based on a misinterpretation of planning policy in terms of seeking zero carbon energy on a minor development. Mr Till explained in more detail the advice received since the 3 November 2021 meeting which, in summary, was showing there is no policy basis on which the Council could lawfully require residential development to come forward on a zero carbon basis, and that the requirements of policy for zero carbon energy only applies to major residential development.

75.  In light of the above, the Planning Officer's recommendation was for a refusal on the basis of the first reason for refusal only (highway safety and general amenity), and the omission of the second reason (zero carbon development).

76.  The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader - Highways Development Control, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard referred to the concerns he expressed at the meeting on 3 November 2021 which had included: (1) That parking on the site for residents had been lost some years ago when the land was sold, and the Council does not have any policies to protect parking facilities like that from what is a private land transaction; (2) That highway reasons had not been a consideration when refusing the previous, much larger planning applications for this site; (3) The proposal complies with the Council’s parking standards, and; (4) The difficulties with access being cited as a reason for refusal given the proposed improvement works to Pond Close as part of the development. Mr Goddard reiterated his previously expressed concern should highways considerations be the only reason for refusal for this application.

77.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Mr Nigel Foot from Newbury Town Council addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish / Town Council Representation

78.  Mr Nigel Foot from Newbury Town Council in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      The application had been considered by Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee which had objected to it on the grounds of over development of the site, the parking issues, and concerns about the limitation of emergency vehicle access to this road.

·      With the proposed development, it was felt that there would be extra cars from both residents and visitors, and this would exacerbate the current difficulties in accessing that road (emergency vehicles have not been able to go down that road because of the number of existing cars parked).

 

Member Questions to the Parish / Town Council

79.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

80.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Debate

81.  Councillor Martha Vickers opened the debate by proposing to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission for the Highway safety and general amenity reasons agreed by this Committee at its meeting on 3 November 2021, and omitting the second reason given at that time for refusal. This was seconded by Councillor James Cole.

82.  Councillor Barnett expressed his reservations that any improvements to access at Pond Close would address the pinch points and the access leading off Elizabeth Avenue, which would remain as a major issue.

83.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Vickers, seconded by Councillor Cole to refuse planning permission. At the vote the Motion was carried by six votes for, two against, and one abstention. 

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

Reasons: 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.

Supporting documents: