Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Garth Simpson reported that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/03164/OUTD in respect of outline application for construction of two new dwellings and garages. Matters to be considered: Access.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Roger Thompson, Parish Council representative, Mr Chris Scorey - Town and Manor of Hungerford, objector, and Mr Chris Strang, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Isabel Johnson introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was considered unacceptable and Officers recommended it be refused.

Councillor Paul Hewer informed the Committee that the site backed onto the River Dunn and not the Kennet and Avon Canal as stated in the report.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld queried why the Environment Agency had not commented on the question of flooding. Isabel Johnson confirmed that all the usual agencies had been informed and it was not compulsory for them to give a response. Councillor Stansfeld commented that inefficiency did not mean they did not have a view.

Mr Roger Thomspon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Hungerford Town Council did not support this application.

·        The Town Plan was clear regarding the need to protect the Town Boundary and he urged the Committee to uphold the findings of the Officer.

·        It was recognised that the site was included in the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) for potential development. It was therefore considered premature to put forward an application when the boundary was being reconsidered.

·        The Town and Manor of Hungerford opposed the application as the charity defended the boundary of the town and due to the sites proximity to the river; a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

·        James Podger’s view as a near neighbour had some merit as the design was a tasteful extension of the development within the boundary. The Town Council suggested that the application be resubmitted once the new boundary had been agreed.

Mr Chris Scorey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr Scorey was a neighbouring land holder and objected to the development on the grounds of the need to conserve the riverside meadow.

·        There was concern about flooding in the area as his land had flooded in the recent deluge. The River Dunn was managed to allow a flood plain upstream.

·        He concurred with Roger Thompson’s concern regarding the SHLAA and felt the application was premature and would prejudice the plan.

·        It was feared that, if granted, the application would create precedence for developments over the settlement boundary.

Councillor Jeff Beck asked for clarification on flooding in the area. Mr Scorey explained that the Environment Agency had issued warnings, however he was uncertain if the site had been submerged during the recent flooding.

Mr Chris Strang in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        There were examples in other parts of the district of developments just outside settlement boundaries being granted. This was therefore not significant enough an issue base a refusal on.

·        The site was sustainable and on a brownfield site. The site was well contained on all sides and hidden from public view. There was no tow-path on the River Dunn and the site had been excluded from the Conservation Area in this part of town. Natural England had offered no objection and it was not a wildlife site. No trees would need to be removed and it was not on a flood plain.

·        This was an outline plan only and if granted a more detailed plan would be submitted.

·        It was up to Members to decide if any harm would result from the development.

Councillor Hilary Cole asked if the land was associated with the former Lamb Inn. The agent replied that he did not know.

Councillor Paul Hewer inquired if the SHLAA had been considered. Mr Strang explained that there was nothing to stop anyone making a planning application if they wished whether the land was in the SHLAA or not. The application should be considered on its own merits.

Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor James Podger raised the following points:

·        He supported the application as it helped to fill the housing requirement in Hungerford and considered it to be a perfect location.

·        The site was not visible from the road and utilised wasted space, which used to be the back garden of the Lamb Inn.

·        The developer had lived in Hungerford for many years.

·        The site was outside the flood plain and did not flood recently. It was outside the Conservation Area and the settlement boundary, however there was development on either side of the plot. The land around the site was owned by the Town and Manor of Hungerford. There was no issue with traffic.

·        It was a common sense use of the land.

·        Drainage had been put in for the cottages and such a low number of additional houses would have little impact on waste collection.

Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor Paul Hewer raised the following points:

·        He felt that this was a balanced decision. Whilst he could see the benefits of the application he acknowledged that it was contrary to policy, although in his view it was only a small deviation from the policy.

The Chairman reminded the Committee of a similar application in Wickham which was refused on policy grounds. He acknowledged that there were anomalies in the boundary which would be addressed shortly.

Councillor Hilary Cole stated that she was keen on adhering to policy, however there could be exceptions. It was unfortunate that this application had come forward prior to the SHLAA being concluded as it was a good, small site.

Councillor Garth Simpson noted that the guidance was that development should taper out towards the settlement boundary with smaller buildings. The Chairman commented that this was an application on the principle of building on the site and a detailed application would follow if it were to be granted.

Councillor David Allen asked Officers to clarify what a special area of conservation was. Isabel Johnson said it was not part of her expertise. She explained that the opposition to the application was not purely due to it being outside the settlement boundary but more on grounds of ecology, pollution and flooding.

After considering the Committees deliberations, Councillor Allen proposed to accept Officer Recommendation to refuse permission. This was seconded by Councillor Simpson.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote. The proposal was carried.

Councillors Hewer and Cole asked for their abstentions from voting to be recorded in the minutes.

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

Reasons for Refusal:

1.      Impact on NWDAONB

The proposed dwellings and residential use of the application site is considered to harm the intrinsic rural character and appearance of the area and is not considered to conserve the landscape or scenic beauty of the AONB as required in paragraph 15 of the NPPF. The illustrative plans indicate standard two storey dwellings which have the potential to introduce dominant forms in an area of small scale development. Elements such as bin stores, garages and any garden paraphernalia would further urbanise the existing rural appearance of the site. Moreover the layout of the proposed dwellings with an additional gravel drive is considered to introduce a new development out of character with the area.

As such the proposal is considered to harm the character of the area contrary to the NPPF as well as Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 and Supplementary Planning Document, West Berkshire: Quality Design.

2.      Impact on character of the Conservation Area

The introduction of urban form in this natural riverside meadow would seriously harm the setting of the Conservation Area, thus failing to preserve an important element of the setting of the conservation area contrary to the NPPF and Policy CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, which require new developments to respect the character of the surrounding area. Additionally, the application would be contrary to Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy which seeks to protect and enhance the district's green infrastructure.

3.      Contrary to Policy

The application site lies outside of the settlement boundary, as defined within Policy HSG.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.  As such the application site is considered to be located in an unsustainable location contrary to the Government's guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, the principle of new development outside any settlement boundary is unacceptable. 

As such the proposal conflicts with guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 and Supplementary Planning Document, West Berkshire: Quality Design.

4.      Developer Contributions

The application fails to secure 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 Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policy CS5 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and West Berkshire Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development.