Agenda item

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member and therefore knew a considerable number of people who lived in Midgham and Woolhampton and had been canvassed on the item. Councillor Pask stated that he was predisposed on the item but had not predetermined it).

(Vice-Chairman, Councillor Alan Macro in the Chair)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/03028/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for the erection of 16 dwellings, including 6 affordable units, with access from Bath Road. Matters to be considered: Access.

Mr Matthew Shepherd (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the report and highlighted the key points.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Anthony Fenn, (Midgham) Parish Council representative, Mr Matthew Partridge, objector, Mr Douglas Bond, agent and Councillor Graham Pask, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Fenn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• An outline application for 16 dwellings on the site had been refused on 23^rd January 2020. The proposed application was considered to be contrary to the current development plan and not deemed an appropriate development in the countryside.
• Midgham Parish Council (MPC) objected to the original application and saw no reason to alter its decision for the resurrected and identical application.
• MPC objected to the application on the following grounds; it was a development in the countryside; it was outside of the settlement boundary and it was an unfortunate example of unwanted urbanisation.
• MPC also objected to the potential inclusion of the site in the West Berkshire Local Plan Review to 2037.
• The two acre green field site was outside of any defined settlement boundary and was adjacent to ancient woodland. The area was currently used as a paddock. There was a Tree Preservation Order on a tree to the east side of the site.
• The south east corner of the site was of special interest in relation to ecological diversity. A significant part of the southern area would be destroyed by the new access to the proposal if approved.
• MPC was concerned that the erection of 16 dwellings would have a detrimental impact upon the ancient woodlands along the west and east boundaries and this formed part of the East Kennet Valley biodiversity opportunity area.
• The Core Strategy required biodiversity assets such as the site in question to be conserved.
• The site was approximately 500 metres from the Woolhampton reed beds and the River Kennet’s site for special scientific interest with protected species present.
• The residents of Midgham and Woolhampton were not strangers to the risk and consequences of flooding. There was concern that the development of the site would reduce the natural infiltration and result in a higher risk of flooding to properties nearby.
• MPC was not reassured by the comments raised by Thames Water as they had been unable to determine the waste water infrastructure needs of the application. Thames Water had also failed to identify how the existing water network infrastructure would be able to cope with the needs of the proposal.
• The urbanisation of the greenfield site would have an adverse visual impact on the character of the area.
• In conclusion there was great concern amongst the residents of Midgham and Woolhampton that increased development would lead to the loss of village identity.  

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Pask noted that historical flooding had been mentioned and asked Mr Fenn to use his local knowledge to expand on what impact there had been to the area during the 2007 flooding. Mr Fenn confirmed that he had only moved to the area in 2012 but was aware that there had been significant flooding during this time. Councillor Pask stated that he would pursue this point further with Officers.

Councillor Geoff Mayes understood that the sewage works that the development would be added to was located in Station Road and Mr Fenn confirmed this was correct. Councillor Mayes noted that there seemed to be some doubt as to whether it could cope with the additional load and Mr Fenn stated that two local residents had contacted him with this concern.

Objector Representations:

Mr Partridge in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• He was representing the residents of Woolhampton who unanimously objected to the application.
• There were several points of concern:

1.    Local opinion: alongside the 39 formal objections to the application he stated that he had submitted a petition against the plans, which had accrued almost 150 signatures. The application had received no local support. The site fell under MPC however, would directly impact on Woolhampton. Both Parish Councils had strongly objected to the application.

2.    The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the landscape and character of the area: this was a quote from a previous rejection statement in July 2019 and this point still applied. The village had already accommodated significant development. The substantial development at Reed Gardens by itself contained almost 40 dwellings, many of which were substantial in size. The elevated position of the site at Reed Gardens like the one on question, significantly increased the negative visual impact on the landscape. The proposed development on the western approach would irreversibly change the character of the village forever. It was felt by residents that Woolhampton had already played its part in providing new housing in the immediate area.

3.    Amenity, services and critical infrastructure:  Thames Water had not given permission for surface water to be discharged into the public network from the development. Regarding waste water and sewage, the Thames Water system in Woolhampton was over capacity and residents on Station Road had reported issues with the drainage system backing up. There was no detailed plan provided to remedy these issues despite comments from Thames Water on 5^th February 2021, which had stated that a detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. To date Thames Water’s response to the system being over capacity was to send tanker lorries to manually siphon, which had caused disruption. It was queried how the application had reached the decision stage when the stipulation from Thames Water had not been met. It was also queried where the impact assessment was from the Reed Gardens development, which should feed into the proposal. Land slippage affecting properties outside the Reed Gardens development had been reported due to the issues with land retention on such a gradient, similar to the site in question. Excess water run-off from the A4 had been reported.   Infrastructure in Woolhampton was already over capacity and this was not addressed as part of the proposal.

4.    Biodiversity impact: As outlined in one of the rejection points to the previous application, the impact on biodiversity would be significant. Policy CS17 required biodiversity assets to be conserved and enhanced. A senior planning and biodiversity officer at the wildlife trust, who had been consulted by one of the local residents, had advised that the applicant had made an error in their calculations meaning that the proposal would result in a 44.5 percent loss to the biodiversity as opposed to the 25.5 percent gain stated.

5.    Road Safety: The proposed ghost lane for access would be the fourth within a 200 yard distance on what was a precarious section of road given the volume of traffic on the A4. All local residents concurred that there was already a speeding issue in the village and when travelling west past New Road a large number of vehicles accelerated dramatically. This section of road was also a dangerous place for pedestrians to cross and was the most obvious place to cross for the village hall and playground. The village did not need more housing but to be enhanced and improved for the current residents. The infrastructure should not be put under more strain and stress.

• Mr Partridge concluded that there was no resident support for the application. He had presented material and planning matters that required consideration by the Committee. The application would have an ecological, aesthetic and locally damaging impact. It was felt that the area should be supported with a positive, sustainable and supportive plan for growth and evolution.

Member Questions to the Objector:

Councillor Pask referred to comments made regarding traffic however, stated that one issue that had not been raised was the difficultly local residents experienced in departing New Road, particularly when turning right towards Thatcham and Councillor Pask asked Mr Partridge to provide his knowledge on this matter. Secondly Councillor Pask asked if Mr Partridge had lived in the area in 2007 and was able to describe the impact on water run-off from the hills in that year or any other year. In response to Councillor Pask’s questions, Mr Partridge stated that he had been a resident in Woolhampton since 2005. Regarding the matter of turning right from the roads in question, at peak hours this could take up to five minutes. It was also incredibly dangerous to turn right because of the acceleration of traffic. It was a significant problem and having four ghost lanes within 200 yards of each other was dangerous considering the precarious nature of that area of road. Regarding Councillor Pask’s question regarding flooding, Mr Partridge reported that in 2007 he had lived at number one Angel Mead by the canal. He had been told that the flooding had been caused because the culverts that were designed to carry water down to the canal had failed due to the large volume of water. The A4 at one point had been at least a foot under water. His house at one Angel Mead, which was at least 100 metres from the A4, had been close to being flooded. It had been a very traumatic event for local residents and the thought of drainage capability being taken away as a result of the proposal was not a good prospect.

Councillor Mayes noted that the Thames Water used a tanker to take excess water or sewage across the canal to the south side. He assumed therefore that the bulk of the effluent was therefore normally in a pipe, which went under the canal, which he noted was an issue considering the canal had a lift bridge. Mr Partridge commented that tankers went down Station Road and over the canal bridge, train tracks and level crossing. This often happened during the night and had caused significant damage to the road. Mr Partridge reported that the disturbance to residents living close by was significant. This had been contested with Thames Water directly on several occasions however, had been rebuffed. To have another development reliant on the same aggregation system seemed adverse to what was required by the village in terms of infrastructure. Councillor Mayes commented that this would be taken up with the drainage officer later in the meeting.

Agent Representations:

Mr Bondin addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• In his view the proposal had significant merit. The site was acceptable for residential development owing to its well contained characteristics with strong defined boundaries comprising of an existing development to the north, east and partly to the south. There was a mature woodland to the west of the site. Therefore the site related more to the built settlement of Woolhampton.
• This was supported by the evidence base to the last Local Plan. The site was not rejected for any specific reason other than only one site should be allocated at Woolhampton.
• These matters were reinforced by the proposed allocation of the site in the emerging Local Plan. The proposed allocation represented a material change in circumstance since the last application, which was refused. Having listened to the comments from both the Parish Council and local residents, Mr Bond commented that it was important to note that the last refusal of the application was not on grounds of access, highways, trees, drainage, flooding or foul drainage.
• Regarding the weight to the new Emerging Local Plan, this was in part determined by the existence of any substantive objections to a proposal. Only one objection had been received to the Local Plan allocation. As Officers had confirmed, they considered the matters raised were not significant enough to remove the site as an allocation. The residential allocation of the site was anticipated to remain and the Council’s Local Plan Team had reconfirmed this.  
• Mr Bond stated that in the factual circumstances National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 48B confirmed that weight could be given to an emerging local plan allocation where there were no unresolved objections, which was the case with the current proposal. NPPF paragraph 50 also confirmed that prematurity of an emerging local plan would seldom be justified as a reason for refusal and Mr Bond stated that Officers agreed with this.
• For all the reasons mentioned, the principle of the proposed development could be supported.
• Regarding landscape and visual impact, the site was well enclosed and related well to its built context. The localised impact of visual change would be limited. The principle of development including the support of a residential allocation outweighed the small degree of impact.
• All other issues including site access, highways, housing mix, density, infrastructure, affordable housing and residential amenities including drainage had been successfully addressed as detailed in the comprehensive responses by statutory consultees.
• To conclude, Mr Bond highlighted that in the case of the application other material considerations had arisen including the largely uncontested emerging local plan allocation and the suitability of the site supported by NPPF paragraphs 48B and 50. These paragraphs confirmed that permission could be granted in accordance with the development plan and consistent with the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Alan Law noted that Mr Bond had stated that there were no outstanding unresolved objections outstanding in the development of the emerging local plan.  Councillor Law referred to pages 28 and 29 of the report, which included comments from Thames Water regarding foul water drainage and queried if Mr Bond would consider any of the points as unresolved objections. Mr Bond stated that he did not consider the points raised by Thames Water as unresolved objections because Thames Water had a statutory duty to provide both the water and drainage to proposed properties. Mr Bond highlighted that condition number 33 in the Officer’s report confirmed that no development would take place until issues regarding foul water drainage capacity were resolved. Councillor Law highlighted therefore that the points were not currently resolved. Mr Bond added that this was how the planning process addressed these type of issues and it did not represent an embargo on the proposal.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Pask in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Councillor Pask thanked Members who had attended the site visit, which had been very valuable. The site visit had ended just after 7pm, which would be assumed to be a fairly quiet part of the day in terms of traffic. Although it had not taken five minutes to exit from New Road Hill there had been a significant wait. 

• Traffic was the main issue in Councillor Pask’s mind, although the Officer had raised a number of other issues.
• Regarding the highways issues Councillor Pask referred to page 39, paragraph 6.56 of the report, which stated that ‘the provision of additional accesses onto main roads such as the A4 is not normally supported by highways officers’.
• There had been lots of comments regarding the principle of development and Members would recall being advised by planning officers at a recent meeting that it was not developable under policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSADPD). Councillor Pask highlighted that a consultation on Regulation 18 had been completed however, there was still another consultation that needed to be conducted and Councillor Pask posed the question to Members of whether they felt that the Local Plan was sufficiently progressed enough in order for the application to be determined.

• Councillor Pask asked for the slide to be displayed that showed the site map that displayed the road network. It could be seen from the slide that New Hill Road was to the right and the site was entirely within Midgham. Councillor Pask highlighted a driveway that went to the village hall, which was located in Woolhampton and stated that he was a regular visitor to this location for Parish Council meetings. Late at night turning out right from the area was not a problem however, he had attended a community event on a Sunday during the day and had experienced difficulty trying to turn right due to the volume and speed of traffic. He therefore concurred with concerns raised by local residents that it was a very busy road and the shadow lanes for turning right were on a narrow section of road considering the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).
• Councillor Pask was concerned about the cumulative impact of traffic. Woolhampton had recently had in excess of 40 houses built within the area. Councillor Pask was aware there was a BBOWT Officer living in the area and had felt concerned when this officer had said there would be a loss of biodiversity caused by proposal.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

Councillor Tony Linden referred to points regarding the emerging local plan and he queried if Councillor Pask felt that there was some similarly to the Pincents application. Secondly Councillor Linden queried Councillor Pask’s comments regarding ghost lanes. Councillor Pask stated that each application had to be judged on its merits. Councillor Pask acknowledged there had been concerns regarding the Pincents application and Officers had stated that it did not fall under C1. The difference with the current application was that it was proposed within the Local Plan whereas the Pincents Hill application was not. Councillor Pask had expressed his view regarding the shadow lanes and stated that Mr Dowding would be well placed to provide a more technical answer on this. It was the proximately of the junctions that were of most concern to Councillor Pask along with the speed and volume of traffic for cars trying to turn right.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Alan Law noted that the application was for access only and therefore queried why there were conditions included on other matters such as lighting and biodiversity. Councillor Law stated that his second question was for the Highways Officer. The Committee had heard references to the junction and that the stretch of road was treacherous and therefore Councillor Law asked if there was any information on the number of accidents in the last five years and if the Highways Officers would describe the stretch of road as treacherous.

In response to Councillor Law’s first question, Mr Bob Dray explained that when an outline application was being considered, the principle of development was also being considered. Reserved matters included access, appearance, layout, landscaping and scale. There were many fundamental planning considerations that had to be considered under the principle of development at the outline stage. In the case of the current application this included principal fundamental issues and detailed access. It needed to be recognised that precise layout, landscaping, appearance and scale could be subject to change at the reserved matters stage.

Regarding Councillor Law’s second question, Mr Dowding responded that there had been no reported incidents along the stretch of road in question in the three years leading up to December 2021. The nearest location of any reported incident was at the junction with Station Road, where there had been two incidents reported.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to paragraph 6.34 of the report and raised the following query regarding the affordable housing calculation. He was of the understanding that this was calculated at 40 percent rounded up however noted that the report stated ‘six units (rounded up)’. Councillor Bridgman stated that 40 percent of 16 was 6.4 and when rounded up equalled 7. Mr Dray clarified that the Planning Obligations SPD stated rounded up or down to the nearest whole unit and therefore six units was policy compliant.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the question raised previously by Councillor Linden regarding the Pincents Hill application. This application had been debated at length with regards to policy C1 including development outside a settlement boundary and the emerging local plan. Councillor Bridgman stated however, that to his knowledge the current application was the first time the Committee had been referred to paragraph 50 of the NPPF. Mr Dray stated that paragraph 50 of the NPPF had been referenced during the Committee meetings regarding the Pincent’s Hill application however, it was not included in the report. Councillor Bridgman explained that paragraph 50 related to prematurity being justified where a draft plan had yet to be submitted and his question therefore related to the stages of local plan preparation. Councillor Bridgman referred to his own research of the stages from the Planning Institute and he queried how Councils were included in this process. He stated that there had not been a debate regarding sites in terms of the current application and he therefore queried if it was too early in the process and why paragraph 50 was being referred to. 

In response to Councillor Bridgman’s question, Mr Dray explained the meaning of Paragraph 50 of the NPPF. Paragraph 50 and prematurity needed to be differentiated to giving weight to an emerging local plan. Prematurity was a specific policy that needed to be applied if an application was approved prior to a plan being completed because there was a threat of undermining the plan as a whole. There was clear guidance that prematurity should not be brought into the decision making process at the current stage and it was only valid for examination. Mr Dray stated that the key question for Members was what weight should be given to the current plan and the emerging plan. The matters that needed to be considered were consistency with the NPPF and unresolved objections. Unresolved objections were addressed as part of the report and the Planning Policy Team had looked at this in detail and were satisfied that the issues raised were not anything that would change their opinion to recommend to Full Council. Mr Dray stated that it was about confidence when considering the weight that should be given to the emerging local plan so that the process was not undermined. Mr Dray stated that there was confidence that Woolhampton would remain a service village and would attract the same rate of growth as in the HSA DPD. There was also no other alternative sites in Woolhampton. Mr Dray concluded by explaining the planning balance that had been applied to the application. Councillor Bridgman thanked Mr Dray for his comprehensive response.

Regarding the stages of preparation, Mr Bryan Lyttle explained that regarding Regulation 18, the Council had delegated the production of the draft Local Plan to the Planning Advisory Group. At Regulation 19, Full Council would need to approve the plan for final consultation. The plan would then go to the examination stage and once the Inspectors report was received back by the Local Authority then it would need to go back to Full Council for approval or rejection of any changes. Councillor Bridgman further asked where this left a Planning Authority faced with an emerging local plan and proposed site within it. If it rejected the application it would fall foul of the appeal process because it would not be taking account of the emerging local plan. Mr Lyttle stated that this would likely need to go to court. Mr Lyttle stated that there was an issue in that a Local Plan took at least three years to produce. The Appeal process could also have a fundamental impact on planning policy depending on what an Inspector determined for that individual application. Mr Lyttle stated that Mr Dray had set out the planning balance that had to be considered on all applications and the considered opinion of Officers was that the planning balance for the current application was tilted in favour of the development for the reasons set out in the report and by Officers.

Councillor Pask referred to comments from objectors regarding the significant difficulties experienced when exiting roads. He referred to the comments from the Highways Officer under section 6.58 of the report where it stated ‘the provision of additional accesses onto major roads such as the A4 was not normally supported by highways officers’. Councillor Pask understood this to be due to the close proximity of the access to another road that was well used. There was also another immediate junction just beyond this road to Woolhampton Hill, which at peak times generated a lot of school traffic. The access in question would therefore be the third junction in close proximately if approved and he asked Mr Dowding to comment on this. Mr Dowding explained that detailed later in paragraph 6.58 it went on to read that ‘however, in this instance having the development accessing and fronting onto the A4 would assist in providing an ‘active frontage’ in line with the Government’s Manual for Streets’. Mr Dowding stated that the decision had been based on this. Normally any form of access onto an A road was not encouraged but in the current case it would help to develop an active frontage in line with guidance. The proximately to two other right turn junctions was not a reason for concern. The proposal, which would create a third right hand turn into the site, followed the precedent set by the two other right turn lanes arrangements. The road was wide and a right turn lane offered a refuge for vehicles to wait in to make a right turn manoeuvre into a side lane.

Councillor Pask stated that he would allow Members to make a judgement regarding westbound traffic turning right. Councillor Pask further queried the difficulty of exiting the road onto the A4. Mr Dowding stated that as with any road there would be periods of time where the traffic was busy. The refuge islands provided refuge for vehicles turning out and into the site.

Councillor Linden referred to comments by Mr Partridge regarding ghost lanes and asked Mr Dowding if he had any comments. Mr Dowding stated that the road had been measured and the right turn ghost islands varied in width from 2.9 metres down to 2.1 metres. It was hoped by modification of condition 20 that the ghost lane measurements could be more regulated to a uniform width. This would help drivers when entering the new site if approved and existing sites.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the biodiversity comments raised by the objector and stated he would like to understand if there was a biodiversity gain or net loss and how it could be ensured there was a gain. Councillor Bridgman stated that he had also read the proposed conditions 26 and 31 and asked for the difference to be clarified. Regarding biodiversity and net gain Mr Shepherd reported that paragraph 6.77 of the report outlined the matter as a quantifiable gain in biodiversity (25.44 percent for habitats and 3.9 percent for linear habitats). This was significantly in excess of the 10 percent contained in the Environment Act 2021. The Ecology Officer was content with the level of net gain expected. BBOWT had been consulted and it had raised an initial concern with the calculation and this was resolved through securing net gains with conditions.

Regarding the two conditions queried by Councillor Bridgman, Mr Lyttle referred to condition 26 (Biodiversity measures) and reported that they were currently on biodiversity matrix 3.01 by DEFRA and the inclusion of the condition in the application ensured that when the reserved matters application came forward, the latest biodiversity matrix issue by DEFRA could be used. Regarding condition 31 (biodiversity enhancement), this ensured the developer could not avoid fulfilling the biodiversity enhancement requirements and dwellings could not be occupied until these were met. Councillor Bridgman stated that the second sentence for condition 26 referred to dwellings being occupied. Mr Dray understood the point and suggested if permission was granted that authority could be delegated to Officers to review the two conditions. 

Councillor Law asked for Mr Dray to comment on the questions he had posed to Mr Bond regarding Thames Water. Mr Bond had stated that Thames Water were obliged to supply water and drainage to the site if approved and Councillor Law queried if this was the case. Mr Dray reported that there were two systems that ran in parallel. Thames Water were obliged to make the connections under a separate legislation. Thames Water would not normally object to an application but would identify whether the existing network’s capacity was sufficient. In terms of the current application Thames Water had identified that they were unsure if there was capacity for the proposal. Mr Dray explained that this was why conditions 33 and 34 had been included as these ensured that development could not commence until this was confirmed.

Councillor Pask referred to comments by Mr Partridge concerning flooding and asked Mr Bowden, the Senior Drainage Engineer, for reassurance that the measures put forward were adequate. Mr Bowden referred to figure 12 in the Flood Risk Assessment, which had been provided by the developer. There was a responsibly by the developer that water should be discharged at one metre per second. All other water would have to be retained on site. Mr Bowden was therefore satisfied that the site would not increase flooding risk elsewhere outside of the site boundary. 

Debate

Councillor Pask stated that there had been representations from a significant number of people and it had been heard that there was also a petition, which he believed had received over 100 signatures. There had been letters of objection and concerns were very consistent, many of which he shared. Mr Dowding had tried to reassure the Committee regarding traffic and Councillor Pask appreciated that at peak times, traffic on major roads slowed things down. Councillor Pask also appreciated that there had not been any reported incidents related to the area of road. Councillor Pask however, still had grave reservations regarding three roads being in such close proximity. The other issue Councillor Pask asked Members to debate was that the site was not developable under C1 of the HSA DPD. Councillor Pask was aware that there was another consultation required under Regulation 19. He noted that it had been stated that there were no other developable sites in Woolhampton and that Woolhampton was a service village however, he had reservations about the site and there was a lot of local concern. This was essentially why it had been brought before the Committee. Councillor Pask stated that he wished to hear the views of other Members on the Committee before making a judgment.

Councillor Law commenced by clarifying points that had been commented on by the Committee. He had noted that it had been stated that there had been no debate regarding the site in the developing plan. He highlighted that 18 months ago the whole list of proposed sites had been taken to the various Parish Councils for comment and feedback had been received.

Councillor Law noted that Pincents Hill had been mentioned and felt that the two applications should not be compared. Regulation 48 had been discussed as part of the Pincents Hill application and he knew this because he had raised it during the initial debate at the Eastern Area Planning Committee. Regarding the current application, Councillor Law stated that he had a lot of empathy with the Ward Member particularly on the highways issues. He had also listened to the comments by the Highways Officer and noted that the road had not been defined as treacherous and there had not been any serious accidents in the last three years. Given what had been stated by the Highways Officer at the meeting and within the report, Councillor Law feared that if the application was rejected on highways grounds, the case would be lost on appeal.

Councillor Law moved on to a further aspect regarding balance. This was particularly difficult because it was a question of weight and whether more weight should be put on the emerging Local Plan or previous one. Councillor Law stated that Woolhampton was a service village and when reading C1 carefully it said this allowed some development inside and adjacent to the existing settlement boundary. He understood that 16 houses was felt to be excessive but there had to be identified need. Councillor Law suspected that when the previous application was submitted and subsequently rejected due to being contrary to the current Local Plan, it was most likely a balanced decision because the Local Plan did allow for some development within or adjacent to a service village. Councillor Law was interested to hear the views of other Members but stated that he did not feel able to reject the application on highways grounds but he would need to consider how much weight to give the emerging plan versus the existing plan.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam felt it was a very difficult decision to make. The Committee had been told they could not really refer to the emerging Local Plan because it was not ready or relevant however, the application had been refused previously in reference to the current Local Plan. Nothing had been mentioned about the street scene or character of the village. Councillor Cottam felt that if the application had been more sympathetic to area and continued housing development to the left hand side of the road, then it was likely it would have been received more positively. He was concerned that Members were being asked to overturn something that they had already refused. Councillor Cottam felt uncomfortable regarding the application.

Councillor Richard Somner agreed that a decision on the application was not straight forward. He often travelled through the district from the eastern area and sympathised regarding concerns about the speed of traffic however, it was a 30 mph speed limit with speed cameras located at either end. Sensible drivers slowed down accordingly however, he sympathised that this was not always the case. Councillor Somner suggested that traffic speeds in the area was something that could be picked up separately by the Highways Team to see if the reinforcement of signage or road markings was required.

Councillor Somner referred to points raised by Councillor Pask regarding pulling out onto the main road. He queried if pulling out on the main road was any more complex than pulling out onto the main road from the petrol station further up the road and felt that this was unlikely particularly when busy. It was unusual to find so many junctions within close proximately and his initial thoughts had been why a new access was being created rather than using an existing road. On balance, Councillor Somner stated that he was leaning towards supporting the Officer recommendation to approve the application however, it was not straight forward.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the question regarding the site being adjacent to the settlement boundary in respect of the current Local Plan. Councillor Bridgman referred to the refusal reasons when the application was last submitted and it was not refused because it was adjacent but because it was against Policy C1 and was outside the settlement boundary. He agreed with sentiments that highways reasons were not adequate reasons for refusal of the application. Councillor Bridgman stated that biodiversity net gains and Thames Water matters including sewage and drainage were covered by suggested conditions. Councillor Bridgman explained that his difficulty was with the emerging Local Plan and how much weight should be given to it and he stated that he was in favour of C1. This was because the emerging Local Plan was not sufficiently emerged or advanced and it was not about to go to examination. Councillor Bridgman did not therefore feel that paragraph 50 of the NPPF meant that there was no option but to accept the application because it was part of an emerging plan. Councillor Bridgman felt that current policy should be adhered to as well as the current DPD. In his view the application should be rejected as being contrary to existing policy. Councillor Bridgman commented that he had stressed to local objectors that just because it was rejected against the current local plan did not mean that it would not emerge in the new local plan. It was not incapable of accommodating housing but should not accommodate housing under the current local plan and should be refused on this basis.

Councillor Bridgman proposed refusal of the application, against Officer recommendation, based on the grounds that it was against policy C1. Mr Dray advised that the lack of a Section 106 Agreement be included in the reasons for refusal and Councillor Bridgman agreed to the inclusion of this. Councillor Cottam seconded the proposal by Councillor Bridgman. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote and at the vote the motion was carried (Councillor Alan Macro abstained from voting)

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

• The application was contrary to Planning Policy C1.
• Lack of a Section 106 Agreement.