Agenda item

(Councillor Phil Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. As his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a long term local resident. Councillor Vickers added that he was predisposed towards approval of the application but not predetermined and, as such, would listen to the debate before determining his view on the item. As his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(The Chairman declared that they had been lobbied with respect to Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00648/FULD in respect of 61 Russell Road, Newbury, RG14 5JX.

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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to refuse planning permission, for the reasons listed 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 noted that the parking policies were decided in 2015/16 by the Transport Policy District, and were presented to Members and approved, as well as to a Planning Inspector. Newbury was separated into three zones, Zone 1 containing the town centre, Zone 2 in suburban Newbury, and Zone 3 outside that area. This application was in Zone 2, and the proposal required 10-12 parking spaces, of which only 8 were proposed. The area was renowned for car parking congestion, and evidence suggested that the area was one of the worst for parking, with the demand for parking near the site at 105%. Therefore, Highway Officers deemed there to be demonstrable harm, and recommended refusal of planning permission on parking grounds.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, Linda Philo, objector, Sukey Russell-Hayward, supporter, and Stuart Bartlett, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

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

• The Newbury Town Council Planning & Highways Committee had no objection to the application, concluding that the design was in keeping with the surrounding houses on Russell Road, but there were concerns over parking. Newbury Town Council was concerned that the report did not mention car club usage and reducing the demand for cars.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.     Mrs Linda Philo in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• There were a large number of disabled and elderly residents on the neighbouring Dyson Close, which was a small cul-de-sac.
• Mrs Philo raised scepticism about the conclusion of the Transport Survey recommending that visitors could park in Newbury car parks, with those expecting visitors to give up their car parking space. In reality, visitors would park on Dyson Close.
• The Transport Survey agreed with the assessment that there was limited capacity for parking, as well as the diagrams of the area.
• There was an existing issue with parking on the pavement in Dyson Close, blocking access for wheelchairs and mobility scooters and the development would exacerbate the existing problems.
• Mrs Philo strongly disagreed with the conclusion of the Transport Survey which stated that there would be no adverse effects on parking, as there were already breaches of Highway Rule 2.4.4 which prohibited parking on pavements.
• Community police officers advised Dyson Close residents to report illegal parking, with anti-social warnings and fines issued in some cases.
• If the development would go ahead, there would be heavy duty vehicles in the vicinity of Dyson Close on a regular basis, further blocking the walkways and pavements, and preventing access to the road for deliveries and carers.
• There was no objection to a single new build property replacing the bungalow, or two new build properties, but three would be excessive and have a direct impact on Dyson Close residents.
• Russell Road residents had been identified using the car parking spaces on the private Sovereign car park, Sovereign imposed hefty fines for use for those without a permit. An escalation of this issue was envisaged.
• Dyson Close had six access points to car parking spaces, and there was only enough space for four or five cars without infringing on the pavement.
• Dyson Close residents strongly opposed the development as they believed that it presented a direct threat to the safety of residents.

Member Questions to the Objector

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked how often car parking on the kerb in Russell Road occurred. Mrs Philo responded that it happened on a daily basis.

9.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked whether Dyson Close was a public highway with yellow lines prohibiting parking. Mrs Philo responded that double yellow lines only existed for a small section, and that people parked on the remainder, single yellow lines.

Supporter Representation

10.  Ms Sukey Russell-Hayward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Ms Russell-Hayward read out statements written by local residents on Russell Road.
• Liz Goddard at 72 Russell Road stated that the design was in keeping with the local area and would provide much-needed family accommodation.
• Ms Goddard understood that the main objection was the allocation of car parking, however, more residents were working in a flexible manner and the parking issues had decreased. Parking on Dyson Close was largely limited to carers and visitors to residents, including Sovereign vehicles, none of whom had permits for the two car parks. Dyson Close residents parked on the road even when they held permits for the car parks. Better management of the smaller public car park would improve the situation, in particular the clearing of abandoned cars, the trimming of trees and hedges, and better lighting. Better management would negate the need for the 2.5 car limit to be imposed.
• Sukey Russell-Hayward at 95 Russell Road, Beth Graham at 86 Russell Road and Karen Bennett at 90 Russell Road stated that the gardens of the proposed development were similar to neighbouring terraced houses, but some on the road were unusually large, skewing the average for the road as a whole.
• They rarely experienced parking issues, and when there were, the small public car park was used, and there had been a reduction in the number of cars on the road. More family housing was needed. Parking on Dyson Close was largely down to visitors and carers, and residents were willing to work with the residents of Dyson Close, the Council and Sovereign to solve any issues.
• Residents of Russell Road undertook a survey and found that the average car ownership was far below the two car parking spaces resolved. One side had an average of 1.19 whereas another had an average of 1.33.
• In conclusion, the residents strongly supported the development with the proposed two parking spaces per dwelling. Better management of existing car parks, including the addition of clear signs and parking bays, as well as double-yellow lines on one side of Dyson Close, would alleviate issues.

Member Questions to the Supporter

11.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant Representation

12.  Mr Stuart Bartlett in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• 61 Russell Road had belonged to Mr Bartlett’s grandfather for over 50 years and it was important for him to ensure that the development added to the community and was supported by the residents. The project was discussed at length with neighbours, including a leaflet drop and open site visit, and the development was widely supported before submission.
• Mr Bartlett was aware of the concerns raised by the residents of Dyson Close and assured them that the development would not pose any threat to their safety or ability to navigate the streets, as this could be covered in a planning condition requiring a Construction Management Plan.
• Mr Bartlett accepted that the development was in Zone 2, which required 2.5 car parking spaces per dwelling, and there was little parking space on Russell Road. However, Mr Bartlett stated that there were extenuating circumstances which made the two car parking spaces sufficient, such as the development being within walking distance of the town centre and other amenities such as Northcroft Park and the bus stop on Craven Road. In addition, average car ownership for the area was 1.6 cars per household.
• Mr Bartlett disagreed with the assertion by Highways that it would set a precedent, giving the rest of Zone 2 extenuating circumstances to avoid the requirement, as he noted that extenuating circumstances were accepted for another development on Pond Close. Pond Close was further away from the town centre, and had a higher car ownership due to the lower amount of transport link. It had not been the case that a precedent was set. Instead, it would allow flexibility at a time where car ownership and usage in sustainable areas should be discouraged in favour of public and active transport.
• On the size of the gardens, Mr Bartlett stated that the question was whether the amenities were appropriate and sufficient to serve the development. The 2006 Quality Design Planning Document provided a general guide, it acknowledged the need to use land effectively, and accommodate garden features. Mr Bartlett believed that the proposed garden size was appropriate and sufficient to do this. In addition, the close proximity of Northcroft Park from the development alleviated the need for garden space.
• The development was ideal to deliver small family homes, was well-designed, and sat comfortably within the street scene. It was efficient without being an overdevelopment of the site.

Member Questions to the Applicant

13.  Councillor Jeff Cant asked why four dwellings was being applied for when a lower number might address concerns. Mr Bartlett responded that it was the right size for a family home, which was what was in demand.

14.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked how approving the application would not set a new precedent in Mr Bartlett’s view. Mr Bartlett responded that the ability to walk into the centre of town, to a bus and train station, was an exceptional circumstance, and he did not believe it would undermine the policy in such a way to set a precedent.

15.  Councillor Claire Rowles asked whether reducing the number of dwellings had been considered. Mr Bartlett responded that other options such as three dwellings or eight flats had been considered.

16.  Councillor Rowles noted that disabilities might be an issue for the parking situation as not everybody could walk into Newbury. Mr Bartlett responded that many disabled residents lived on Dyson Close and the town centre was accessible to them.

17.  Councillor Adrian Abbs asked whether the argument for having garden amenity less than half of the policy requirement was being justified on the basis of the local park. Mr Bartlett responded that he would consider it a privilege to live so close to a park and it would be an acceptable alternative.

18.  Councillor Abbs asked if Mr Bartlett had looked into the issues caused by parking congestion. Mr Bartlett responded that he had considered the accessibility of the road, and did not believe it would be a major issue.

Ward Member Representation

19.  Councillor Martha Vickers in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• On the car parking spaces proposed as part of the development, Councillor Martha Vickers noted the research initiated by the applicant which found that the average number of cars owned in the area was 1.6 per household. Changing attitudes to car ownership lowered the demand for cars and, declaring a climate emergency, the Council should recognise this change. Several town centre planning applications contained very few car parking spaces, and this approach should be endorsed. The Council should additionally support the local car club, which could reduce the need for car ownership.
• Councillor Martha Vickers noted that she was willing to work with Dyson Close residents to respond to their concerns, and that she supported the development’s focus on family housing.
• Councillor Martha Vickers noted that if the application was refused, the next one for the site might be for flats, as the parking standards were lower. Houses would be preferred to fit with the local area, which was predominantly terraced housing.
• On amenities, Councillor Martha Vickers noted that many nearby houses had small gardens, and that this was acceptable for many families. The close proximity of the development to Northcroft Park should also be considered, and the residents of Russell Road and Dyson Close had access to the canal towpath. The issue of improving the towpath near the canal and Monkey Bridge had been raised and agreed in principle, and could be made a planning condition.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

20.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

21.  Councillor Tony Vickers agreed with the importance of exercise but asked whether exercise had to be within one’s home or garden, noting the local park. Ms Cheyanne Kirby responded that the coronavirus pandemic had highlighted that people did need garden amenity space, and that the combination of garden amenity and parking issues led to a conclusion that the development would be too cramped.

22.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked why the parking policy did not take into account the use of bicycles for active travel. Mr Paul Goddard responded that there was a separate standard for cycle parking that detailed all cycling requirements for new developments. It was not part of the parking policy because it had not long been written when the parking policy was formulated.

23.  Councillor Claire Rowles asked for more information as to what exceptional circumstances could be considered in relation to the parking policy. Mr Goddard responded that the policy was that 2.5 spaces were required per dwelling, so 10-12 were required. Policy P1 stated that exceptional circumstances did exist, but this was not an exceptional case as it was on a congested road. An example of an exceptional circumstance would be a historic building that would need to be partially demolished to fulfil parking requirements.

24.  Councillor Phil Barnett asked whether the development would have to be built on foundations to be level with the road. Ms Kirby responded that it would be raised to the level. Councillor Barnett asked whether the roof line would be level with existing buildings. Ms Kirby responded that it would be higher, to accommodate the second floor bedroom. They would be level with the flats to the west. The Chairman noted that these levels were present in the pack.

25.  Councillor Adrian Abbs asked when the previous application’s appeal would be decided on. Mr Simon Till responded that the appeal was validated on 3 April 2022, and that statements had been received by the appellant. A start date had not been received, and it would be a while before the consideration of the written representations appeal, which would not have a set date.

26.  Councillor Abbs asked whether the recommendation was that it was a borderline case or a strong objection to the application. Mr Goddard responded that it was a strong objection considering the shortfall of parking, and that it would set a precedent against raising a parking objection in Zone 2. Mr Till responded that he was confident that the decision to refuse planning permission was not made on balance, and that officers considered the issues of parking and garden amenity to be indicative of overdevelopment, with simply too many dwellings proposed, and not sufficiently addressed by the applicant. Those reasons were robust and officers were prepared to defend them at appeal. If the Committee took a different route, it would raise questions as to whether the appeal could be defended. Councillor Abbs asked whether it was a strong enough decision to take to District Planning. Mr Till responded that it depended on what the Committee said in debate.

27.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked whether the local park should be taken into account when considering garden amenity. Mr Till responded that the individual merits of each development proposal must be considered, and officers did not consider there to be a sufficient planning benefit to justify alterations to the planning policy in this case.

28.  Councillor Benneyworth asked whether family houses could raise a scenario where four cars would be necessary at a single dwelling. Mr Goddard agreed, noting that the 2.5 space requirement was reached due to considering all scenarios.

29.  Councillor Howard Woollaston asked how far away from Zone 1 the proposed development would be, and what the parking requirement for Zone 1 would be. It was noted that Zone 1 was 150 metres away. Mr Goddard added that two parking spaces was the requirement in Zone 1.

30.  Councillor Jeff Cant asked whether there was a parking permit system in place to prevent an overflow in cars. Mr Goddard confirmed that there was and overflow cars could park in Dysons Close.

Debate

31.  Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by stating that he had lived on the Westfields estate since 1987, and had represented it on the Council for all but seven years. Councillor Tony Vickers stated that neither of the ward members during the time that the Parking Policy was approved lived near Eastfields or Westfields, and stated that the Committee could and should make an exception for any site within the flood plain of the old Victorian housing. Councillor Tony Vickers stated that very few opportunities to redevelop the area or develop family homes would present themselves, and stated that two parking spaces was acceptable, noting that he had a single parking space in Zone 1 which had been sufficient. The site was 150 metres from the Zone 1 boundary, and the entire Westfields area was highly sustainable for active travel, so it could not be compared with other areas in Zone 2.

32.  Councillor Tony Vickers noted that Zone 2 stretched two miles away from the town centre, and it was unreasonable to assume both areas had the same transport needs. Councillor Tony Vickers noted that he was aware of the sensitive issues around Dyson Close but that proposals had been made to solve them. He added that something would always be built on the site, and temporary inconvenience was inevitable. Councillor Tony Vickers noted the housing surveys which had underlined flaws in the Parking Policy, and the lack of regard for cycling in the policy.

33.  On amenity space, Councillor Tony Vickers stated that there should be flexibility in the policy, noting that it only effected the household and not the wider community, and it was a personal choice. Councillor Tony Vickers concluded by stating that it was the twenty-first century and a climate emergency, and that these exceptions could be made without undermining the overall policy.

34.  Councillor Adrian Abbs stated that he asked whether the application was an on balance case because he was aware that it was the role of the Committee to decide on difficult and more complicated cases, and that he was also acutely aware of the ongoing appeal. Councillor Abbs stated that he had concluded that it was not the role of the Committee to make changes to planning policy, and that if the strong recommendation of officers was to refuse planning permission then it should be listened to. Councillor Abbs added that the planning policy might be flawed but that it must be amended through proper means.

35.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted that the application was in a difficult situation in terms of parking, and that he had taken into account the arguments made by Councillor Tony Vickers. However, although he did not always agree with the policy, he had accepted the strong recommendations put forward by officers.

36.  Councillor Jeff Cant stated that he believed this to be a case of proposed overdevelopment. However, Councillor Cant had considered closely the evidence presented and the need for family homes in close proximity to amenities, and that context had convinced him to support the application. Councillor Cant stated that it was the Committee’s role to consider exceptions to policy rather than apply it rigidly.

37.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth stated that he was sympathetic to the proposal for the site, but that he had not been convinced that it was the right proposal. Councillor Benneyworth had considered the strong objection by Mr Paul Goddard, and the fact that four three-bedroom houses would increase the number of cars, and concluded that he could not support the application.

38.  Councillor Claire Rowles raised concerns about Councillor Tony Vickers’ predisposition in regards to the application. The Chairman responded that he had received counsel from Legal with regards to it but had concluded that Councillor Tony Vickers should receive the benefit of the doubt.

39.  Councillor Claire Rowles stated, in regards to the application, that she was not opposed to development on the site but that she was not convinced that it was the right development. Councillor Rowles had considered the strong objections of officers, and concluded that the development did not pass the ‘exceptional circumstances’ clause in planning policy and that she would support officers’ recommendations.

40.  Councillor Howard Woollaston stated that he believed that it was a finely balanced decision. Councillor Woollaston stated that he thought it was well-designed and in keeping with the character of the area, but reluctantly he could not support the application in light of the strong objections raised by officers. However, planning policy should be looked at in circumstances where the site was close to the boundaries between zones.

41.  Councillor Tony Vickers stated that, in light of the concerns raised by the Chairman and other Members regarding his predisposition, he would abstain from the vote.

42.  Councillor Adrian Abbs proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Phil Barnett.

43.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Adrian Abbs, seconded by Councillor Phil Barnett to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried. Councillor Tony Vickers abstained from the vote.

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

Refusal Reasons

Informatives