Agenda item

(Councillor Richard Crumly declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he knew the applicant through his line of work. As his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest he left the meeting at 6:35pm and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/02236/OUTD in respect of the access and layout of proposed plans to construct one dwelling and demolish a garage.

Councillor Graham Pask sought clarification in respect of how many planning decisions had been taken to appeal. David Pearson confirmed that the 08/01740/OUTD was dismissed at appeal on 28 July 2008 for the following reasons:

·              Two dwellings would harm the open, spacious character of the area.

·              The vehicular access for the scheme was different to that which was proposed.

David Pearson stated that, to his knowledge, an appeal had been lodged for application 06/00510/FULD which was also withdrawn.

Paul Goddard advised the Committee that application 06/02582/FUL had been considered at appeal and subsequently refused for the following reasons:

·              Restricted visibility on to Station Road.

·              The visibility splay on to Station Road was outside the control of the applicant.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe requested clarification in respect of the site footprint referenced on the plans. David Pearson explained that the plans illustrated the footprint of the site only.

Before continuing, the Committee sought clarification from the West Berkshire Council Solicitor in attendance, Sarah Clarke, in respect of whether the appeal information introduced by Paul Goddard could be used to consider the application. Sarah Clarke explained that the five day rule applied to new information submitted into the Planning Authority. In this instance the information was already available and within the possession of the Council and was therefore acceptable as it was not new information. David Pearson apologised for the administrative oversight that had lead to the application and appeal mentioned by Paul Goddard not being included  and summarised in the planning history section of the committee but confirmed that he did recall this application and appeal. He also confirmed that the access issues that were considered in that application and appeal were the same as those being considered in the current application .

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Jonathan Humphrey, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Humphrey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·              The current proposal was based upon the feedback from an earlier application which sought to develop two dwellings on the site. The wall to the south of the access route had been lowered to improve the visibility splay as suggested and he had an arrangement made with the neighbour to ensure the wall remained at a suitable height.

·              A similar application had been approved nearby with an equally difficult access onto Station Road.

·              He was unhappy with the inconsistent feedback received in respect of the impact the application would have upon the highway.

·              He conducted an independent automatic traffic count to establish the percentile of vehicle speeds along Station Road. The survey established that the average speed was less then 30 mph which suggested, according to the Manual for Streets, that the size of the visibility play could be reduced.

·              The suggested impact of increased vehicle traffic using the access road was not significant in practice and had been in use since the site was first developed in 2003.

·              The neighbour was content with the proposed additional lighting along the access route in to the site.

·              He could resubmit the current application with the proposed visibility splays included within the red line.

Mr Humphrey advised that between four or five Vehicles used the access road onto Station Road and the visibility splay had improved since the south wall was lowered.

The Committee referred to item 6.5 in the report which detailed the highway impact and requirements specified by the Highways Service in terms of visibility splay on to Station Road. The Committee acknowledged that the Manual for Streets required a visibility splay of 2.4 metres x 43 metres clear above a height of 0.6 metres on to a road subject to a 30mph speed limit. The independent traffic counter established that the average speed along Station Road was 22mph.

Point 6.5.5 of the report informed the Committee that the visibility splay of 2 metres x 32.5 metres southwards and 2 metres x 33 metres to the centre of Station Road was, according to the applicant, achievable.

Councillor Brian Bedwell suggested that it would have been useful if the Committee had a plan to illustrate the current visibility splay achieved against the level required. Paul Goddard apologised for not having the information available and clarified that the Highways Service required a minimum visibility of 25 metres from the point of 2.4 metres from the front line of the access road and that this wasn’t achievable in either direction due to the presence of buildings and third party land. Mr Pearson confirmed that the plan showing the visibility splays proposed by the applicant was included in the plans on the display board.

Councillor Law questioned reference in 6.5.2 to the requirement for a 43 metre line of sight from the access road. Paul Goddard explained that Manual for Streets required 43 metres if the speed limit on the adjoining road was 30mph. The traffic count suggested that the average speed along Station Road was far less then 30mph, as such the required distance would be reduced to 25 metres. The current, achievable visibility splay was based upon the current height of the wall on to the south side of the access road. Paul Goddard reminded the Committee that the wall was outside the applicant’s site and outside of his control.

Councillor Irene Neill, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·              She brought the Committee’s attention to page 8 of the report which listed an extensive history of planning applications on the site. The development of the site had been contentious at times and objections lodged, although the current application had been generally well received by the local community.

·              She confirmed that the wall to the south side of the access road belonged to the neighbour, not the applicant.

·              The application had received letters of support, in particular regarding the introduction of a septic tank to replace current waste water pipes which were unable to accommodate existing or further development.

·              The access route to Hornbeam Cottage was approved in 2002, she queried whether the Manual for Streets guidance was less stringent at that point and as such it allowed the development to use the existing access road which instigated concerns surrounding the access to/from the site.

David Pearson reminded the Committee that they had been asked to consider the control of the site line rather then what would be considered as a suitable height of a wall surrounding the site. The level of visibility relied upon the height of the south wall remaining below 0.6 metres which was outside the control of the applicant and was therefore deemed unacceptable by the Highways Service. David Pearson advised the Committee that similar issues had been raised during an earlier application and it had been refused for those reasons, and the refusal reasons had been tested at appeal and the appeal dismissed.

Councillor Pask agreed that the Committee needed to focus on the matters raised by the Highways Service which had been recorded during an earlier application and taken to appeal. Councillor Pask suggested that the impact upon the Grade II listed building already on the site would be apparent irrespective of whether there were one or two dwellings proposed for development.

In response, David Pearson brought the Committees attention to the Conservation Officer’s comments on page 9 which outlined that she felt the development would be sufficiently far away from Brook Lawn and therefore acceptable.

Councillor Bedwell put forward that the Highway Service comments were an integral element of the application when considering the impact of the development. Councillor Bedwell proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Mollie Lock.

Councillor Law requested clarification from Officers in terms of how the application could considered if the issue surrounding access to the site was already in place. Paul Goddard advised that the Committee could take into account previous decisions made and reminded them that this application included the consideration that the access was onto a through road that linked Woolhampton and beyond to the train station. There was also concern regarding the narrowness of the footway fronting the site.

Councillor Pask suggested that the proposal was amended to incorporate a further reason for refusal, impact on the open spacious  character of the application site.

Councillor Bedwell concurred with the suggestion and therefore amended the proposal accordingly. The amended proposal was seconded by Councillor Lock.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed visibility splay onto Station Road is outside of the application site and outside of the control of the applicant. The Highway Authority is therefore unable to ensure that this splay is kept clear of obstructions at all times. The proposed development would result in the increased use of an access which is sub-standard in respect of visibility and would be detrimental to pedestrian and highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire District Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

2. The development fails to provide an appropriate scheme of works or off site mitigation measures to accommodate the impact of the development on local infrastructure, services or amenities or provide an appropriate mitigation measure such as a planning obligation. The proposal is therefore contrary to guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS5 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, July 2012 as well as adopted Supplementary Planning Document 4/04 - Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development.

3. The application site is sensitively located within, but on the edge of, the settlement of Woolhampton. The site forms part of the garden serving Brook Lawn, a Grade II listed building. The site is presently undeveloped and contains a number of mature trees. This large and mature domestic garden coupled with the site's location on the edge of the main built up settlement of Woolhampton gives the site an attractive semi-rural appearance. The site is visible from footpath Woolhampton 7 which wraps around the southern and western boundaries. The construction of a single substantial property by reason of its large footprint, associated driveway and additional parking to serve Brook Lawn would harm the open and spacious character of the site and have a negative impact on the wider character of the area. For this reason the proposal is contrary to the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006- 2016, July 2012 and Policy HSG.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007 which seek to ensure that new development is in keeping with the local character.