Agenda item

(Councillors Tuck, Allen, Edwards and Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council, however they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member o Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. 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(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/02707/FULD in respect of 1 Dalby Crescent, Newbury.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Tony Forward, Parish Council representative, Mr Colin Fletcher, objector, and Mr Tom Brockman, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

The Chairman requested clarification as to whether there were any Tree Protection Orders on the site. Derek Carnegie confirmed that there were not.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked for confirmation of the extent to which the building height had been reduced. Derek Carnegie explained that a further review had been undertaken and this had shown the reduction to be 1 metre. The report that stated 0.5 metres was therefore incorrect.

Councillor Roger Hunneman asked what the difference was between the development of brownfield sites, and ‘garden grabbing’, and whether the Council had a policy in relation to development on gardens. Derek Carnegie replied that there was a lack of clarity about this difference and that it had become a matter for local authorities to decide. The Chairman stated that a good description of brownfield sites was ‘previously developed land’. However Derek Carnegie said that the Council did not have a policy in relation to development on gardens and that these decisions were taken on a case by case basis.

Mr Tony Forward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Newbury Town Council (NTC) had concerns over the definition of ‘brownfield’, and explained that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) specifically exclude gardens. It was NTC’s opinion that the Council should be more strict in the use of garden space for development;

·        NTC were disappointed that more information was not provided to demonstrate the impact on the surrounding area due to the density of the proposed housing;

·        Whilst it was acknowledged that the roofline had been lowered, there would remain a substantial impact as there had been no building there previously;

·        NTC believed that condition 2 should remove all permitted development rights;

·        The new application did not properly take into consideration the concerns of the Planning Inspector.

·        Councillor Swift-Hook requested clarification as to the planning rights that NTC believed should be removed. Mr Forward confirmed that he was requesting that permitted development rights be removed to ensure that additional windows or window height velux windows for example were not permitted at a later date.

Mr Colin Fletcher, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        The current arrangement of housing along Dalby Crescent was that the houses on the right hand side of the road were set below road level, and on the left hand side of the road were bungalows. In Mr Fletcher’s opinion, the proposed development would appear significantly taller than surrounding buildings;

·        The location of Plot 4 meant that it would be unlikely to have a front garden;

·        As a direct neighbour to the site, the development of the land would block sunlight from his back garden and reduce his privacy;

·        Mr Fletcher was also concerned about parking for the new houses, stating that most families would have at least two cars, and with grown children and visitors this would increase again, requiring parking in the Crescent;

·        Mr Fletcher stated that he had chosen to move to this bungalow following retirement for its quiet surroundings, and this proposal was very disappointing.

Mr Tom Brockman, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr Brockman believed that the issues raised by the Planning Inspector had been well considered and addressed appropriately in this application.

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

·        The application had caused considerable consternation amongst neighbours in Dalby Crescent, and having been in contact with both the objectors and the applicant he was able to see both arguments;

·        Councillor Swift-Hook shared residents’ concerns regarding parking and overlooking, and noted that despite the reduced height of Plot 4, it would still be clearly visible from the top of Dalby Crescent;

·        The recent appeal decision had, however, identified the basis on which this application should be determined, and that was the impact of Units 3 and 4 on the surrounding area. Councillor Swift-Hook believed that the question to be considered was whether the reduced roof height was sufficient to overcome the Inspector’s observations;

·        Councillor Swift-Hook considered the issues to be finely balanced and remained undecided at this point.

Councillor Hunneman referred the Committee to paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the Planning Inspector’s decision letter, where the Inspector had used phrases such as ‘dominant’ and ‘out of character’. Councillor Hunneman acknowledged the reduced height of the building, but remained concerned about the overall impact of the development and considered it to be excessive.

Councillor Tuck expressed his concern with the amount of parking space allocated to these 4 family houses. He believed that as the families grew, this would cause even greater congestion in the road.

Councillor Paul Hewer expressed his sympathy with neighbouring residents, however he believed that the application adequately addressed the concerns raised at appeal and therefore believed that it would be difficult to defend a rejection of this application if it went to appeal again.

Derek Carnegie understood the concerns that had been raised during the evening, but reminded the Committee that the application met all of the Council’s policy requirements for garden space, parking allowances and sustainability. Whilst the outcome might not be fully satisfactory, it would be difficult to defend a decision to refuse the application on any of these grounds.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld commented that reducing the height of the roof by 1 metre was not sufficient to overcome the comments made by the Inspector in relation to dominance and integration.

Councillor Allen did not feel satisfied that the small adjustments made to the application would mitigate the Inspector’s concerns.

Councillor Adrian Edwards commented that the parking spaces allocated per dwelling appeared generous when compared with locations nearer town where only one space per dwelling was provided.

Councillor Hunneman proposed that the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission be refused. Councillor Allen seconded the proposal.

The Committee agreed that the reason for refusal was the impact of the development on the local amenity and street scene.

At the vote the proposal was carried. Councillor Swift-Hook asked that it be noted that he abstained from voting.

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

Reasons:

1.         Notwithstanding the comments made in the Inspector's appeal decision letter regarding application 12/00426/FULD, the Council considers that the revised application on the site for 4 dwellings will still have a detrimental impact on the attractive street scene in Dalby Crescent, in particular with respect to plots 3 and 4 to the north of the site. There will also be an impact in visual terms upon the street scene on Pyle Hill/ Greenham Road to the west of the application site. The  present attractive character of the vicinity will accordingly be significantly harmed contrary to the advice on good design as noted in the NPPF of 2012, Policy CS14 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026, and Policy HSG1 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 (Saved Policies 2007). The application is thus unacceptable.

2.         The applicant has failed to enter into the required s106 planning obligation which would mitigate the impact the new occupants of the housing would have upon the Council's facilities, services, and infrastructure. Accordingly, the application is contrary to the advice in the NPPF of 2012, para 122 of the CIL Regulations of 2010, as amended, the advice in the Council's Document, Delivering Investment  from Sustainable Development adopted in June 2013, and policy CS5 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026. It is thus unacceptable.