Agenda item

Proposal:	Demolition of existing buildings [Gilson Engineering] and erection of 9 dwellings, two 2 bed, four 3 bed and three 4 bed. New access and sound barrier. Parking and landscaping.
Location:	3 - 7 Sandleford Farm, Sandleford, Newtown, Newbury.
Applicant:	Gilson Engineering.
Recommendation:	The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to GRANT planning permission, subject to the completion of a s106 planning obligation.

 

(Councillor David Allen declared a personal interest in all the Agenda items by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council and the Planning and Highways Committee. He had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in all the Agenda items by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council. Councillor Tuck had not been present during discussions, however Councillor Beck had been present at the committee when the application was discussed. He would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in all the Agenda items by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Greenham Parish Council and Newbury Town Council who had previously considered the application, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. Councillor Swift-Hook also reported that his use of a computer during the meeting was in order to access information on the application before him. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 13/02408/FULD in respect of the demolition of existing buildings [Gilson Engineering] and erection of 9 dwellings, two 2 bed, four 3 bed and three 4 bed; a new access, sound barrier, parking and landscaping at 3 - 7 Sandleford Farm.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr A Forward, Parish Council representative and Mr R McLennan, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations and drew the Committee’s attention to the contents of the Update report. He noted that the accompanying Listed Building Consent (LBC) for this site was not on the agenda as it had not been called in, however the decision made for this application would also apply to the LBC. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was an improved scheme and was firmly recommended for approval.

(Councillor Virginia von Celsing arrived at 6.40pm. Her vote was not taken into consideration on this item.)

Mr Forward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council strongly requested that block paving be used in the scheme, but this had not been detailed in the plan.

·                    There was concern with the number of Conditions and how they were being used to rectify the scheme.

·                    There was concern regarding the lack of consultation on the sewage scheme and that no Conditions had been attached to this part of the proposal. Sewage would drain into the farm’s yard.

·                    Concern was raised about the siting of the acoustic fence on the old foundations and that the 2m high gate, designed to reduce noise at the access, had been removed at the request of Highways Officers.

·                    The plans were flawed and Officers were dealing with this through Conditions.

·                    Hydrocarbon levels were beyond government guidelines. The land was therefore contaminated.

·                    The Condition regarding access should read ‘accesses’.

·                    In conclusion, problems with the proposal were being mopped up by the use of Conditions. The Committee could not reach an informed decision without being presented with all the information.

The Chairman asked Officers to comment. Michael Butler explained that nearly all planning permissions were subject to Conditions as set out by law. Should the application be approved by the Committee, the Conditions were also approved, and authority was delegated to Officers to enforce them. This was not democratic, it was a delegated authority process. The site had significant planning history and he considered that the information provided by the developers was more than adequate for a decision to be reached.

Councillor Hilary Cole asked if Mr Forward considered the current plan to be better, architecturally. Mr Forward was unable to concur with this view as the finishes to be used were unconfirmed. Councillor Cole asked Officers if  Parish Councils were consulted in respect of finishes. Michael Butler answered that Ward Members were sometimes consulted.

The Chairman queried if Councillor Julian Swift-Hook would be happy to assist in this matter. Councillor Swift-Hook agreed to assist and confirmed that this was a regular occurrence.

Councillor Swift-Hook sought clarification from Mr Forward as to concerns that a report on pollution had not been submitted by the developers. Mr Forward confirmed that a report had only been submitted for the previous application and noted that Planning guidance was that the application should not be determined if the report was not present.

Mr McLennan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The scheme would enable Gilson Engineering to move to more appropriate premises. The changes made for a more marketable scheme. Gilson’s had not shied away from problems and had consulted with experts where necessary. He believed the new design was a better reflection of a farm yard than the extant permission.

Councillor Jeff Beck expressed concern about the sound barrier on the north of the site and that the entrance gate had been removed. He was conscious that road noise would permeate the site, but also accepted that the entrance gate had been removed at the request of Highways Officers. Mr McLennan noted that the proposal at the entrance to the site had been for a five-bar gate for residents security rather than as a noise barrier. The noise report had been updated since the gate had been removed from the plans. The gate to the north was, however, constructed as a sound barrier. Councillor Swift-Hook concurred that there was concern regarding the lack of noise mitigation at the entrance. Mr McLennan observed that there had been no entrance gate in the approved scheme and that this had not changed.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked why a report had not been submitted to the Committee regarding land contamination. Mr McLennan confirmed that an updated report from the approved proposal had been submitted.

Councillor Swift-Hook drew the Members attention to point 6.4.3 of the report and the use of tarmac rather than block paving. Mr McLennan confirmed that the developer would prefer block paving. Michael Butler interjected that he had recommended tarmac for adoption purposes, however he had subsequently found that this was not necessary and block paving was acceptable.

Councillor Swift-Hook addressing the Committee, as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                    He agreed that the application was an improvement on the extant scheme, however his concerns were:

·        Lack of affordable housing on the basis of viability. There were serious concerns in Greenham that affordable housing was being deleted from proposals as the value of a scheme was increased if there was no affordable housing and this was an incentive to developers to remove such units from their proposals .

·        The relative height of the new building to the farm house and its proximity.

·        His main point against approval was the reliance on Conditions and the delegation of decisions to Officers and Ward Members rather than the Committee having sight of the complete plan.

Councillor Cole proposed the application be accepted in line with Officers’ recommendation. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Beck.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to GRANT planning permission, subject to the completion of a S.106 planning obligation.

If for any reason the S.106 obligation was not completed by 28 February 2014, the application, if expedient, be refused for the following reason:

“Notwithstanding the applicant’s willingness to do so, the required s106 obligation to mitigate the impact the new occupiers of the housing will have upon the District’s facilities, services and infrastructure, has not been completed. Accordingly, since  the application is contrary to the advice in the NPPF of 2012, para 122 of the 2010 CIL Regulations [as amended], policy CS5 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026, and the SPD adopted June 2013 - Delivering Investment From Sustainable Development, it is unacceptable.”

CONDITIONS

1.                  The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against   the advice in the DMPO of 2010 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2.                  No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development are submitted on the application site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This to be done in concert with the ward member .The hard surfacing of the courtyard shall be brick/block paviours. The materials must be submitted on site only, for approval. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with   Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Adopted Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

3.                  No development shall commence until details of floor levels in relation to existing and proposed ground levels are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels. This shall include all relevant aod levels on the site and in relation to the farmhouse located to the south.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed dwellings and the adjacent land in accordance with Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

4.                  The development must be built out in strict accord with the site plan number CS/ GE.1/ 06h received on 14th November 2013, and the additional section plans number CS/GE.1/10a received on the same date.

Reason: To clarify the planning permission in accord with the advice in the DMPO of 2010.

5.                  Irrespective of the provisions of the current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision), no additions or extensions to the dwellings shall be built or ancillary buildings or structures erected within the curtilages, unless permission in writing has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose.

Reason: To prevent the over-development of the site and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

6.                  No development or other operations shall commence until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details shall include schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment.  The scheme shall ensure;

a)         Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.

b)         Any trees shrubs or plants that die, become seriously damaged or die within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

7.                  No development shall commence (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include a plan showing the location of the protective fencing, and shall specify the type of protective fencing, all in accordance with B.S.5837:2005. Such fencing shall be erected prior to any development works taking place and at least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Note: The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 9 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2005.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Policy ENV20 of West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

8.                  No development or other operations on site shall commence until an arboricultural method statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all temporary tree protection and any special construction works within any defined tree protection area. Thereafter the development shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with the objectives of policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

9.                  Prior to the commencement of building and other operations on site the vehicular, pedestrian/ cycle access(es) and associated engineering operations shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawing(s).

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to accord with Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 in the interest of highway safety.

10.             The existing vehicular access at the site shall be stopped up and abandoned immediately after the new access hereby approved has been brought into use.  The footway/cycleway(s) and/or verge(s) shall, at the same time as the stopping-up and abandonment, be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and highway maintenance and in accordance with   Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

11.             No development of the site shall be brought into use until visibility splays of 2.4m by 215 metres have been provided at the vehicle access point.  The visibility splays shall, thereafter, be kept free of all obstructions to visibility above a height of 0.6 metres above carriageway level.

Reason: In the interest of road safety in accordance with Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

12.             Prior to the development being brought into use the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved drawings and this area shall thereafter be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and assists with the parking, storage and security of cycles in accordance with Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

13.             No development shall commence until details to show a temporary parking area and turning space to be provided and maintained concurrently with the development of the site are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved parking area and turning space shall at the commencement of development be provided and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details until the development has been completed and shall during that time be used for parking by all employees, contractors and operatives or other visitors during all periods that they are working at or visiting the site.

Reason: In accordance with Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 to ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities during the construction period, in order to minimise the incidence of off site parking in the locality which could cause danger to other road users or long term inconvenience to local residents.

14.             No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site have each been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

all previous uses

potential contaminants associated with those uses

a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors

potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect the local aquifer in the area in accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.

15.             Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that contamination at the site is remediated such that the site does not pose a threat to controlled waters. In accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.

16.             If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To avoid potential hotspots on the site being discovered and not remediated in accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.

17.             The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. The well of the dairy and farmhouse plus the existing drainage on the Sandleford Farmhouse site must not be altered.

Reason: Areas of contamination may also be present at this site. Infiltration drainage must not be located in contaminated areas.  In accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.   

18.             No development shall take place within the application area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any archaeological features or finds identified are adequately investigated and recorded. In accord with policy CS19 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

19.             Prior to works commencing on site, the location of the mitigation measures outlined in para. 3.2 of the Gilson’s Engineering, Sandleford Farm, Newbury, Bat Survey by Aluco Ecology Ltd and dated July 2009, and the recommendations in the arbtech report of 11th September 2013,  will be supplied to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such approved plan will be implemented in full and the measures undertaken shall be maintained thereafter. In addition, prior to works commencing on site, a reptile mitigation plan shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. Such approved plan to implemented in full and the measures undertaken shall be maintained thereafter

Reason: to protect species on site in accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.

20.             No development shall commence until details of a scheme of works to protect the occupiers from externally generated noise is shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. All works forming part of the scheme shall be completed before any dwelling is occupied.

Reason: to protect the amenities of the new occupants, in accord with policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

21.             The hours of work for all contractors (and sub-contractors) for the duration of the site development shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, be limited to; 7.30 am to 6.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays, 7.30 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays, and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of surrounding residents in accordance with policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

22.             The dwellings shall achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or any such equivalent national measure of sustainability for house design which replaces that scheme).  No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate relevant to it, certifying that Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or any such equivalent national measure of sustainability for house design which replaces that scheme) has been achieved, has been issued and a copy has been provided to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development contributes to sustainable construction. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

23.             No development or other operations shall commence on site until details of the proposed access, hard surfacing, drainage and services providing for the protection of the root zones of trees to be retained has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with the objectives of Policy CS18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

24.             No development shall take place (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until the applicant has secured the implementation of an arboricultural watching brief in accordance with a written scheme of site monitoring, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Policy CS18 of West Berkshire Core Strategy July 2006 to 2026.

25.             No development shall take place until a Section 278 Agreement is signed under the Highways Act 1980 to enable the provision of the following:

a)     The provision of the site access.

b)     The provision of a Traffic Regulation Order to prevent right turning in and out of the site.

c)      The provision of a 2 metre wide foot way fronting the site.

Reason: To ensure that the access into the site are constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

INFORMATIVE:

1.                  This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.