Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of Chieveley Parish Council and had been present when the application was discussed by them, but would consider the application afresh. As her interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 13/03234/FUL in respect of the creation of a new secondary access to serve an outbuilding.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Rob Crispin, Parish Council representative, and Mr Chris Strang, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie 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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

Rob Crispin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Retrospective applications were a cause for concern. It was felt there was no need for a new access.

·        The proposed access was on the apex of the road, which although not a challenge for vehicles leaving the site, was dangerous for traffic progressing westbound.

·        Flooding was an issue on the access road.

·        The inferior turning capability of farm vehicles should be taken into consideration.

·        There was no guarantee that vehicles approaching the access would be travelling at low speeds.

Councillor Jeff Beck asked Mr Crispin to elaborate on the existing building and a potential access gate to the south of the building. Mr Crispin pointed out that there was an existing field gate to the north east of the site and an entrance to the green that could be connected by a path.

Mr Strang in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        The level of use of the proposed access would be too low to substantiate an objection.

·        Visibility was 43m in both directions, which was adequate for vehicles travelling at low speeds.

·        The current flooding on the road was the Council’s responsibility and was not a reason for refusal. The applicant had previously offered to site a soak away on his land if the Council were to provide the pipes, but had received no response.

Councillor Cole queried the need for a new access. Mr Strang explained that ascertaining need was not a material planning consideration, but rather, whether it was safe.

Councillor Roger Hunneman sought clarification regarding the application which had not yet been implemented. Mr Strang noted that the permission was for a classic car garage and was remote from the proposed access.

Councillor George Chandler asked for confirmation that the permission had been for a garage with a home office above. Derek Carnegie confirmed that a Condition applied that it could not be used for residential purposes or by a separate business.

Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor Cole raised the following points:

·        There was concern from residents regarding the safety of the access and that it was a retrospective application.

·        The positioning of the access on a bend was not particularly safe, particularly if a slow tractor and a fast car were to meet.

·        She felt strongly that the hedgerow had been destroyed and trees felled.

Councillor Cole proposed to reject Officers' recommendation to grant planning permission for reasons of:

·        Highway safety.

·         Impact on the hedgerow / rural scene

This was seconded by Councillor Hunneman.

The Chairman asked if the Committee could insist on the reinstatement of the hedgerow. Derek Carnegie explained that the boundary treatment was under the applicant’s control.

Councillor Jeff Beck questioned the Highways Officer as to the line of sight for vehicles approaching the bend and the safety of its positioning. Paul Goddard replied that a sightline of 31m was suitable for vehicles travelling at 24mph. It was up to the Committee as to whether they felt vehicles would be travelling at this speed in this location. Councillor Garth Simpson noted that he drove on that road regularly and approached it slowly as he considered it to be a dangerous bend.

Councillor Chandler commented that he would be more in favour of this application than a hard path cutting across the field. He considered that nice entrance and high hedges would add to the countryside and had no problem with the application being retrospective. Councillor Paul Hewer concurred with this view.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Cole, seconded by Councillor Hunnman, to reject Officers' recommendation to grant planning permission. This proposal was not supported on the basis of the Chairman's casting vote. Members were then invited to vote on the proposal of Councillor Andrew Rowles, seconded by Councillor Ieuan Tuck to accept Officers' recommendation to grant planning permission. This was carried on the basis of the Chairman's casting vote.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Schedule of Conditions

Time limit

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 Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 - 2026 and the National Planning Policy Framework should it not be started within a reasonable time.

Approved plans

2.      The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawings (title/ numbers) Location Plan 1204:01A, Block Plan 1204:20 B and Elevations 1204:21 As received with the application validated on16th December 2013 and amended by plans contained in the e-mail dated 5th February 2014 from the agent.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against National, Regional and Local Planning Policy.

Landscaping scheme

3.      No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site (boundary hedging outside of sight lines) 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 or become seriously damaged 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 Policies CS 14 and CS 18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-20026.

Visibility splays

4.      The access shall not be brought into use until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres have been provided at the access. 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 interests of road safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

Set back of gates

5.      Any gates to be provided at the new access (as shown on the approved plan) where vehicles will enter or leave the site, shall open away from the adjoining highway and be set back a distance of at least 6 metres from the edge of the highway.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and to ensure that vehicles can be driven off the highway before the gates are opened. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

SuDS

6.      Within 2 months of the date of this decision there shall be submitted to the local planning authority for its written approval a scheme of surface water drainage incorporating sustainable drainage principles, to deal with the disposal of rainwater from the development. The scheme of surface water drainage shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 2 months of it being approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved method of surface water disposal shall be retained thereafter. This shall include the provision of permeable paving at the access and the control of raising of any ground levels/verge levels at the site.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner. To prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

Informatives

Standard informatives including those relating to access construction, damage to the carriageway, footways, cycleways and verges.