To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 18/03061/RESMAJ, Land Adjacent To Hilltop, Oxford Road, Donnington, Shaw Cum Donnington

Proposal:

Reserved matters application for phased development of 222 dwellings pursuant to outline planning application number 19/00442/OUTMAJ which relates to:

 

Section 73: Variation of Condition 1 (approved plans) of planning application reference 14/02480/OUTMAJ allowed under appeal decision reference APP/W0340/W/16/3143214 dated 20 March 2017 for a mixed use scheme on 23.1 hectares of land, comprising up to 401 dwellings on 11.35 hectares of land. A 400 sq.m. local centre (Use Classes A1/A2/D1/D2 no more than 200 sq.m. of A1) on 0.29 hectares of land, a one form entry primary school site on 1.7 hectares of land, public open space, landscaping and associated highway works).

 

Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale, and discharge of Condition 4 (site wide housing mix) and 5 (strategic landscaping plan) of 19/00442/OUTMAJ.

 

Location:

Land Adjacent To Hilltop, Oxford Road, Donnington, Newbury.

 

Applicant:

David Wilson Homes.

 

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS.

 

Minutes:

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Jeff Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Adrian Abbs reported that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/03061/RESMAJ in respect of Reserved matters application for phased development of 222 dwellings pursuant to outline planning application number 19/00442/OUTMAJ which related to:

Section 73: Variation of Condition 1 (approved plans) of planning application reference 14/02480/OUTMAJ allowed under appeal decision reference APP/W0340/W/16/3143214 dated 20 March 2017 for a mixed use scheme on 23.1 hectares of land, comprising up to 401 dwellings on 11.35 hectares of land. A 400 sq.m. local centre (Use Classes A1/A2/D1/D2 no more than 200 sq.m. of A1) on 0.29 hectares of land, a one form entry primary school site on 1.7 hectares of land, public open space, landscaping and associated highway works).

2.         Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale, and discharge of Condition 4 (site wide housing mix) and 5 (strategic landscaping plan) of 19/00442/OUTMAJ.

3.         Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.         Officers recommended the Committee to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and in the update report.

5.         The Chairman invited Paul Goddard to comment on highways matters. He confirmed that traffic and access issues were approved at the outline stage, and Section 106 contributions included £0.75 million towards improvements at Robin Hood roundabout and to pedestrian links to Newbury Town Centre. He stated that the main site access would be off the Vodafone roundabout on the A339, with another access off Love Lane limited to buses, controlled by a bus gate. He confirmed the site layout was acceptable, subject to minor amendments that could be addressed during adoption.

6.         He indicated that the Parish Council was concerned about the parking and layout around the proposed school, but explained that since the application for the school was not yet submitted, the layout and parking within the school were unknown. Officers had made a worst case assumption that no parent parking would be provided within the site. Observations at similar schools suggested that 40-45 spaces would be needed. Education colleagues had confirmed that most pupils would be from the development to wider community by a ratio of 6 to 1. Therefore the car parking was divided accordingly either side of the bus gate. However in expectation of more car journeys from the wider community the parking ratio was balanced 4 to 1 development to wider community. He highlighted a concern about pedestrian safety in the subway under the A339 and confirmed that this would be acceptable on balance as this had been addressed by ensuring it was sufficiently overlooked from adjacent properties. He indicated that the small parking shortfall for the apartments was not enough to warrant an objection. In conclusion, he confirmed that Highways had no objections to the proposal subject to imposition of the conditions listed in the main report and the update report.

Removal of speaking rights

7.         As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

8.         In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from Shaw-Cum-Donnington Parish Council, and Sophie Taylor (David Wilson Homes), agent.

9.         Written submissions were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Parish Representation

Summary

Shaw-cum-Donnington Parish Council (PC) does not seek to overturn the outline application 14/02480/OUTMAJ that has led to these two reserved matters applications.

Our main objection to these applications is the reduction, deletion or removal of infrastructure promised in the outline application.

A second objection concerns the parking and drop off arrangements for the expected new school.

A third objection concerns the environmental impacts of the developments.

Essentially, the PC wants the new development to integrate with the Shaw-cum-Donnington Community rather than become a satellite of Newbury.

Infrastructure

Shaw-cum-Donnington Parish Council (PC) objects to applications 18/03061 and 20/00047as they do not accord with the outline application. Allotments were expected. The Parish has 17 allotments for 650 dwellings and these are over-subscribed. Pro rata, 6 new allotments are needed for the 222 new dwellings. After protest, 5 have been provided on steeply sloping ground. The PC wants 11 allotments on level ground for the two sites.

A Local Centre was expected. The outline application states that it must be provided in the first phase of development but now it is in the 6th of seven build phases. CEG stated they would provide it but there is no guarantee The PC want a guarantee that the Local Centre will be built. Also, the PC wants to be consulted on its form.

The PC is concerned that the village hall, which is already fully booked, will be unable to serve the 40% expansion of the parish. Assistance will be needed to provide and enhance new social facilities by developing the redundant old school.

Parking and drop off for the new school.

The PC believes this part of the application should be dropped and reintroduced as part of the plan for the whole new school area. This is to ensure that the school and its parking/drop off are well integrated. In the meantime a temporary road should be built for the bus access.

Environmental matters

West Berkshire Council has declared a climate emergency. These developments ignore this strategy. Indeed, the dwellings will only meet minimum building regulations. No energy saving improvements such as better insulation or solar panels are planned. This is very disappointing.

In the past, flooding has engulfed Vodafone and part of Trinity school as a result of run off. The PC is unconvinced that this danger has been addressed. The dwellings will reduce ground absorption, which will further impact on the A339 underpass that is already subject to frequent flooding. There are extensive documents on drainage that show water exiting via the underpass but are silent on what happens after that. The PC demands assurance that this sole pedestrian and cycle link between the two sites and the school will not be interrupted under any circumstances and Vodafone and the Trinity areas will not flood.

Agent Representation

We welcome the opportunity to set out our reserved matters application to you in this statement. Your consideration of our application this evening is the culmination of efforts by David Wilson Homes, officers, consultees and developers of the other phases of this scheme.

The principle of development and the access were established by the outline application for 401 dwellings, local centre, primary school as well as open space, landscaping and highway works that was allowed at appeal. The site is being delivered in phases, coordinated through the parameter plans, conditions and the s106 agreement.

Our application is for 222 dwellings, including 89 affordable dwellings and includes phases 1 – 4 of the approved Phasing Plan. The main vehicular access to the site is from the A339 ‘Vodafone’ roundabout with a bus only access from Love Lane. Pedestrians and cycle accesses are provided onto Love Lane and Oxford Road and integrate the site with Donnington. The existing public footpath provides access to the wider countryside and the part of the site east of the A339.

The development will provide 1 – 5 bedroom properties in accordance with the site wide housing mix that ensures the same mix is provided on both sides of the A339. The 89 affordable dwellings are provided across phase 1 - 4 as apartments and 2 - 4 bedroom houses.

All houses have on plot parking, with many also having garages in addition to the parking spaces. The apartments are served by allocated parking spaces, bicycle sheds, and unallocated visitor bays. Further visitor spaces are provided throughout the scheme. In response to consultation visitor parking has been provided adjacent to the LEAP and either side of the bus gateway to provide parking for the primary school outside of the 1.7 hectares school site.

The proposed drainage strategy utilises a number of attenuation basins designed to accommodate the required 1:100 year storm event plus 40% climate change allowance.

A seasonal stream runs through the site from the northern edge and through the underpass. The stream runs most winters as a result of groundwater and surface water run-off. The stream will be locally re-profiled to ensure that the outfall volume does not increase as a result of the development. A new box culvert will be created to divert water under the raised floor of the underpass and prevent it flooding, allowing all season access for pedestrians and cyclists.

Open space and landscaping are provided in accordance with the parameter plans and includes a LEAP, LAP, allotments, amenity green space over the oil pipeline easement and along the western and eastern edges of the site. Five allotments, including one accessible allotment, parking and water point are to be provided in terraces to create flat beds in the location determined by the parameter plans.

We welcome the Officer’s recommendation to grant permission as our scheme contributes much needed housing supply in the form of a high quality development that accords with the outline planning consent and planning policy.

Ward Member Representation

10.      Councillor Lynne Doherty in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         There had been many more objections from residents to the previous application than the current proposal. If this had been an outline planning application, she would have supported residents by opposing it, but the current application was being considered due to a successful appeal.

·         There had been a gradual acceptance from residents that the development will go ahead and that there was a need to ensure that it is properly integrated, welcoming new residents to form a cohesive community.

·         She expressed frustration that there were two separate applications and indicated that what applied to the first application, could also be applied to the second.

·         Although she had asked for the applications to come to committee, she was not opposing the development as she recognised the need for additional housing for the local population. She wanted to ensure that what was offered in the original outline planning application would be delivered.

·         While she recognised that the current application related predominantly to matters affecting appearance, landscape, layout and scale, she wanted to highlight residents’ concerns.

·         The Parish Council was concerned about issues with allocated allotment space and the local centre. The local centre, originally part of Phase 1, had been pushed back. As a result, residents would travel by car to the town centre and early patterns of behaviour would be hard to reset later. The local centre was also important in promoting social cohesion and integration with existing residents. This condition had been approved under delegated powers in February 2019, but there had been several amendments made to the initial conditions, making it difficult to see the final picture. These changes were detrimental to residents, and so the phasing should revert to the original plan. Reductions in allotment numbers represented an example of infrastructure initially used as a ‘carrot’ to gain acceptance being gradually withdrawn.

·         There had been previous flooding in the valley between the two developments and she expressed concern about Condition 27 being partially discharged. She sought officer clarification on this and the committee’s intervention to address this, if necessary.

·         It was disappointing that the developer had not gone further on sustainable environmental options. The proposal would be determined before the new Local Plan was adopted, which sought to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, and while the government was consulting on a white paper to combat climate change and maximise environmental benefits. The developers should look at these elements again to see what more could be done to future-proof this development.

·         The committee should intervene to ensure the above issues were addressed.

11.      Councillor Steve Masters in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         He endorsed the Parish Council’s observations, especially about the gradual erosion of the initial outline planning permission conditions, and suggested that the development should be held until after the Local Plan had been developed.

·         The proposed environmental mitigation was minimal and the Parish Council was correct to highlight the issue.

·         The development should be an opportunity for the Council and developers to work together to implement something worthy of the climate emergency declared last year.

·         Such a large and important development should offer real, green housing with solar PV, heat pumps, and a commitment to the highest levels of insulation. Also, the development offered an opportunity to build a less car-centric community, which would reduce concerns about the impact on local roads and the environment. In this way, it would be a ‘leading light’ showing commitment to the climate emergency. If a fraction of the money spent on improving road access were to be spent on cycling, walking and bus routes, it would be an exemplar scheme. There had been public comments about the failure of the West Berkshire Council Executive to uphold commitments to the climate emergency.

·         He echoed concerns raised by the Parish Council regarding the number of allotments, since they helped to integrate people into the community, and engaged young people with their environment and where their food comes from.

·         The erosion of developer commitments often related to social and affordable housing, because the developer had to re-evaluate their return on investment. Commitments must be robustly enforced and social weighting should be on a par with environmental weighting. The current proposals from the Executive Portfolio Holder for Finance to increase the economic weighting would only benefit the developer.

·         The Committee should push for the best case for the community, by not granting the developer planning permission at the lowest levels permissible. To not do so, and fail to mitigate social and environmental aspects adequately, would be negligent.

·         Determination should be deferred until after the new Local Plan was complete.

Member Questions of the Ward Members

12.      Councillor Carolyne Culver asked about the potential impact of the development on local secondary schools.

13.      Councillor Doherty stated that the current expansion of Trinity School would accommodate pupils from the proposed development.

14.      Councillor Culver asked Councillor Doherty if she agreed that more than the bare minimum of allotments should be provided, especially with the additional demand as a result of Covid-19.

15.      Councillor Doherty opined that the developer should honour the original commitment. She confirmed that there was a waiting list for allotments in Shaw-cum-Donnington. She acknowledged that allotments were popular and suggested that the more that could be done to increase allotment provision the better, from health and environment perspectives.

16.      Councillor Phil Barnett asked the local Ward Members if they agreed that the development would present an opportunity for people living in the new development to access the A339 and leave the town.

17.      Councillor Doherty suggested that this would be no more than for any other location around Newbury where people choose to work.

18.      Councillor Masters acknowledged that this was a risk, but indicated that he could not speak for individuals.

19.      Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Councillor Masters which Council policies would allow the Committee to defer its decision.

20.      Councillor Masters suggested that if the Committee wanted to make this an environmentally sustainable development, it should push for something in line with the draft Local Plan, and seek the developer’s cooperation to delay until better environmental mitigation could be put in place.

21.      Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked the local Ward Members how the developer could best liaise with the community.

22.      Councillor Doherty stated that the developer had liaised with the Council and had engaged with the community, organising a stakeholder engagement event four or five weeks previously. She suggested that the developer had not listened to the feedback from this engagement. She highlighted the results of a survey of residents conducted by the Parish Council, which highlighted the need for a local centre and a desire for community cohesion. This had been raised with the developer, but they had not acted upon it, and the local centre had been pushed further down the priority list. She suggested that infrastructure was more than footpaths and cycle routes, and included things that enabled people to interact as a community.

23.      Councillor Culver asked Councillor Masters about Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments and how that money ought to be used for local infrastructure.

24.      Councillor Masters confirmed that money would be directed to improvements at the Robin Hood roundabout. He suggested that a fraction of the £0.75 million could enhance cycling and walking access, and support sustainable bus services to reduce traffic volumes. He indicated that the A339 was already busy and the proposed access could potentially increase traffic further. He highlighted road widening through the town, which would encourage more traffic. He stressed the importance of encouraging alternatives to the car for journeys to and from the proposed development, and suggested the money should be invested in further enhancing cycle facilities and bus routes.

(Councillor Vickers lost connection and the meeting was paused while he reconnected.)

25.      Councillor Tony Vickers asked Councillor Doherty for confirmation that there was no local centre in Shaw-cum-Donnington now, and about discussions that took place at the outline stage, and during the appeal stage to ensure that this was resolved to the satisfaction of the local community. He suggested that it was now too late to resolve this.

26.      Councillor Doherty confirmed that there was a village hall, which was used to capacity. She stated that this was discussed with the developer and that the term ‘local centre’ had been used, since this left some flexibility about what it could look like, depending on what the local parish wanted it to be, but this had gradually been dissolved.

Questions to Officers

27.      Councillor Abbs asked the officers about any powers the Committee had to defer determination of the application in the way that Councillor Masters had suggested.

28.      David Pearson stated that this was a reserved matters application to determine four very specific areas of development that already had outline permission. He indicated that he understood Members’ desire to assess the application against the new Local Plan once adopted, but cautioned Members that a decision to defer the application for this reason would be difficult to defend if an appeal against non-determination was lodged, and would be likely to result in an award of costs.

29.      Councillor Jeff Cant indicated that there was already a significant housing development next to the Robin Hood roundabout (Blossom Meadow), which was in an advanced stage of construction. He expressed concern about traffic issues and suggested that for previous developments, infrastructure improvements had often followed a long way behind the development and sale of houses. He asked if changes to the Robin Hood roundabout would precede traffic being generated from this development.

30.      Paul Goddard confirmed that the payment of £0.75 million was to be provided upon commencement and that the Council already had a scheme prepared for the Robin Hood roundabout, widening southbound along the southern edge of the roundabout. He indicated that the scheme would probably be provided in the 2021-22 financial year.

31.      Councillor Cant stated that the access across Robin Hood roundabout from Shaw Road was currently impeded by the sequencing of the traffic lights. He asked if there would be more problems in the future, or if access would be improved for residents of Clay Hill and Shaw-cum-Donnington.

32.      Paul Goddard confirmed that the proposed works focused on the Shaw Road arm, widening that part of the roundabout to four lanes. The way the lanes would be divided would enable the signals to be sequenced in such a way to improve access from Shaw Road. He offered to send Councillor Cant a copy of the scheme drawings.

33.      Councillor Clive Hooker reminded members to focus on matters relating to this particular application.

34.      Councillor Culver referred to the housing mix on page 28 and asked if it should say ‘social rent’ rather than ‘affordable rent’.

35.      Simon Till stated that the officer’s report did not form part of the Committee’s decision and that it did not vary the Section 106 contributions that secured the affordable housing permission, so while the table had been scrutinised by the Housing Officer, and should be compliant with their current terminology, it did not alter anything that had been approved through the outline permission. He suggested that it was not strictly relevant to this application, but suggested that officers could ensure that an informative referring to the correct mix of affordable housing was applied to any planning permission granted.

36.      Councillor Culver asked if conditions could be imposed about when the money for the school would be forthcoming.

37.      Simon Till indicated that he thought the funding and timing of payment had been secured through the Section 106 agreement. Sharon Armour confirmed this was correct.  Sharon Armour also confirmed that the Section 106 agreement provided for 70 percent social rented homes and the affordable rent was part of the additional 30 percent, which could either be affordable rented or shared ownership.

38.      Councillor Culver asked whether it would be better for the school parking to be provided in the ratio 6:1.

39.      Paul Goddard explained that the reason for the 4:1 ratio was that more people were expected to walk from the new development, while a greater proportion of parents from the wider community would be expected to travel by car.

40.      Councillor Vickers highlighted that three of the seven phases were not part of this development, and asked how the Council could control the phases through this development, when three of the phases were not under the control of the developer, but would be essential to the vitality and success of the overall development.

41.      Simon Till indicated that the phasing was referred to in the update sheet, with 222 dwellings delivered by David Wilson Homes as part of Phases 1-4 on the western parcel of land, subject to approval of this application. He confirmed that Phase 5 consisted of the school, Phase 6 was the local centre and Phase 7 would be for 179 dwellings. He stated that the phasing plan required the school and local centre to be delivered before the occupation of the 223rd dwelling.

42.      Councillor Vickers highlighted that the David Wilson Homes site could be completed and occupied without triggering the school or local centre, but if the other site were to commence early, the trigger could be reached before the David Wilson Homes site was completed. He asked how the phasing could be maintained as originally conceived, with up to four developers involved.

43.      David Pearson expressed concern that the debate was covering matters already determined as part of the outline application. He understood Members’ concerns about delivery and phasing, but these could not be changed.

44.      Councillor Vickers indicated that where the drainage would be completed and how the underpass would be constructed and finished would affect the adjacent sites. He asked if the condition would require all of the work to be done by David Wilson Homes before the other developer could start. He suggested that construction on this site could cause flooding issues on the other site, and downstream.

45.      Simon Till confirmed that these were conditions of the outline permission. The pedestrian link had been secured by condition, including details of how it would be provided, the drainage was the subject of an extremely detailed condition that required a number of steps including scheduling of provision, and who would be responsible for providing and maintaining the drainage. He confirmed that without the discharge of both of these conditions, development on this site as a whole could not take place.

46.      Councillor Hilary Cole indicated that both Ward Members had made specific reference to the local centre and the way it would be phased. Although she appreciated that it was not a matter for discussion in relation to this application, she asked whether an informative could be attached to any approval given with a strong recommendation that the phasing of the local centre be reviewed by the developers.

47.      Simon Till stated that the phasing was determined by the outline planning permission and reviewing the phasing would effectively require the developer to reapply for outline planning permission. He confirmed that there were reasons for the proposed phasing, so this may not be feasible.

48.      Councillor Hilary Cole sought assurance from officers that negotiations with the developer had been robustly challenged and that there was a valid reason for the proposed phasing. She noted that the decision had been made under delegated powers.

49.      David Pearson stated that neither he nor Simon Till had not been involved in previous negotiations and while he could probably provide an answer in time, he could not do so at that point.

50.      Councillor Barnett asked about the size of the allotments.

51.      Simon Till indicated that the allotments were allocated a particular amount of land by the parameters plan approved under the outline planning permission.

52.      Councillor Abbs asked if the detailed layout plan was consistent with the outline plan and associated traffic modelling.

53.      Simon Till confirmed that the outline parameters plan also approved a movement plan that impacted on how the block design was formulated for this application and impacted on the traffic modelling. He stated that the parameters plan was the same as for the outline planning permission, although the level of detail was different, specifically how blocks would be laid out and relate to one another.

Debate

54.      Councillor Abbs opened the debate. He indicated that he had concerns about environmental issues and community assets relating to the proposed development and the fact that conditions had been relaxed, but noted that the Committee did not have the powers to deal with these under this particular application.

55.      Councillor Vickers indicated that he had been content with the conditions attached to outline planning, but was concerned that the current proposal would be lifeless if the school or local centre were not available from the outset, and that travel patterns formed at first occupation would be difficult to reverse later. He indicated that there was no choice and proposed to accept the officer recommendations. He suggested that there may be an opportunity to amend policies to better control the phasing and the way the development is delivered.

56.      Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the outline application had been approved and that the matters under consideration were limited to appearance, layout, scale and landscaping. She observed that yellow bricks were proposed for the David Wilson Homes site and buff bricks for the Taylor Wimpey site, but stated that Newbury was predominantly a red brick area. She highlighted the fact that the development was close to the boundary with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and asked that lighting be designed so as to minimise light pollution. She indicated that the Planning Authority had been very robust in terms of the number of affordable homes delivered and indicated that this would not change. She proposed to second the proposal to accept the officer recommendations.

57.      Councillor Hooker sought Members’ views on the issues of brick colour and light pollution.

58.      Councillor Cant stated that he supported Councillor Hilary Cole on both issues and suggested that conditions be imposed accordingly.

59.      Councillor Benneyworth agreed on the need to look at lighting. He looked forward to when policies could be changed to better reflect the declared climate emergency. He also expressed disappointment that the developer was not proposing to install sprinkler fire systems.

60.      Councillor Hooker asked officers about the powers available in relation to brick colour and lighting design.

61.      David Pearson indicated that he shared Members’ concerns about the proposed brick colours and referred members to proposed Condition 4 on page 85, which required the developer to provide samples of materials. He indicated that officers would encourage the developers to provide brick colours more in keeping with the local area.

62.      Simon Till confirmed that there was a condition on the outline permission that applied to biodiversity, which required the developer to provide details of external lighting.

63.      Councillor Culver indicated that the condition that David Pearson had cited actually referred to the second application that was being considered that evening and suggested that a separate condition be applied to this application.

64.      Simon Till stated that materials had been referred to in the approved plans condition on this application. He suggested that the reference to materials could be omitted from that condition, and instead that details and materials could be approved under a discharge of conditions application.

65.      Councillor Hilary Cole indicated that she supported that approach.

66.      Councillor Abbs expressed his support for the issues raised in relation to bricks and lighting.

67.      Councillor Hooker asked if officers were clear about the proposed changes to the conditions.

68.      Sharon Armour confirmed that the proposal was to accept officer recommendation as per the conditions listed in the agenda, but with the materials omitted from the approved plans condition and a new condition added to address this. She referred Members to the conditions on the update sheet, which mostly related to highways matters.

69.      Simon Till confirmed that the proposed changes would remove the requirement for materials from the approved plans condition and for an additional condition stipulating that materials would have to be approved by discharge of conditions.

70.      Councillor Hooker asked about conditions relating to light pollution. Sharon Armour indicated that this would be addressed by the condition relating to the outline consent.

71.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Vickers and seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. At the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant reserved matters approval subject to the following conditions with delegated authority to amend/add/delete the final list of planning conditions):

Conditions

1.      Reserved Matters Related to Outline Permission

This permission relates solely to the reserved matters referred to in Condition 3 of the Outline Planning Permission granted on 25 June 2020 under application reference 19/00442/OUTMAJ (which is a variation of 14/02480/OUTMAJ allowed under appeal decision reference APP/W0340/W/16/3143214 on 20 March 2017). Nothing contained in this proposal or this notice shall be deemed to affect or vary the conditions imposed on that outline planning permission.

Reason: The reserved matters cannot be considered separately from the permission to which they relate and the conditions imposed on that outline permission are still applicable.

2.      Approved Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed below:

Layouts

·         Planning layout - H7391/PL/01 Rev T

·         Access and Movement layout - H7931/AML/01 Rev F

·         Bin Collection - H7931/BCL/01 Rev A

·         Garden Areas - H7931/GAL/01 Rev F

·         Highways Adoption - H7931/HAL/01 Rev G

·         Storey heights - H7931/SHL/01 Rev F

·         Surveillance and Protection - H7931/SPL/01 Rev F

·         Tenure Plan - H7931/TL/01 Rev F

House Types – Private

Ingleby

·         H403--C7/01 Rev B

·         H403--C7/02 Rev B

Bradgate

·         H417---7/01 Rev B

·         H417---7/02 Rev B

·         H417---7/03 Rev B

·         H417---7/04 Rev B

Winstone

·         H421 - - - 7/01 Rev B

·         H421 - - - 7/02 Rev B

·         H421 - - - 7/03 Rev B

·         H421 - - - 7/04 Rev B

Avondale

·         H456 - - - 7/01 Rev C

·         H456 - - - 7/02 Rev C

·         H456 - - - 7/03 Rev C

·         H456 - - - 7/04 Rev C

Holden

·         H469- - X7/01 Rev B

·         H469- - X7/02 Rev B

·         H469- - X7/03 Rev B

·         H469- - X7/04 Rev B

Hollinwood

·         H486 - - - 7/01 Rev C

·         H486 - - - 7/02 Rev C

·         H486 - - - 7/03 Rev D

·         H486 - - - 7/04 Rev D

Manning

·         H577 - - - 7/01 Rev C

·         H577 - - - 7/02 Rev C

·         H577 - - - 7/03 Rev C

·         H577 - - - 7/04 Rev C

Evesham

·         H586-H-7/01 Rev C

·         H586-H-7/02 Rev C

·         H586-H-7/03 Rev C

·         H586-H-7/04 Rev C

Henley

·         H588 - - - 7/01 Rev C

·         H588 - - - 7/02 Rev C

·         H588 - - - 7/03 Rev C

·         H588 - - - 7/04 Rev C

Ashdown

·         P286-E-7/01 Rev B

·         P286-E-7/02 Rev B

·         P286-I-7 Rev B

Hadley

·         P341 - - D7/01 Rev C

·         P341 - - D7/02 Rev C

·         P341 - - D7/03 Rev B

·         P341 - - D7/04 Rev C

·         P341 - - D7/05 Rev B

·         P341 - - D7/06 Rev C

·         P341 - - D7/07 Rev A

·         P341 - - D7/08 Rev A

·         P341 – WD7 Rev B (elevations)

·         P341 – WD7 Rev B (plans)

Archford

·         P382 – E – 7/01 Rev B

·         P382 – E – 7/02 Rev C

·         P382 – E – 7 – SP/03 Rev C

Kennett

·         T310-E-7/01 Rev C

·         T310-E-7/02 Rev D

·         T310-E-7-SP/03 Rev C

·         T310-I-7/01 Rev B

·         T310-I-7/02 Rev B

Affordable Housing Types

P231

·         P231 - - - 7 Rev B (elevations)

·         P231 - - - 7 Rev B (plans)

Plots 154 – 162

·         H7931/E/01 Rev E

·         H7931/FP/01 Rev E

·         H7931/FP/02 Rev E

Plots 179 – 184 and 202 – 207

·         Plots 179 – 184 and 202 – 207 Rev C (elevations)

·         Plots 179 – 184 and 202 – 207 Rev C (GF & FF plans)

·         Plots 179 – 184 and 202 – 207 Rev C (SF Roof plans)

SF58

·         SF58.59-01 Rev C

·         SF58.59-02 Rev B

·         SF58.59-03 Rev B

SH51

·         SH51-E-7/01 Rev D

·         SH51-E-7/02 Rev E

·         SH51-I-7/01 Rev D

·         SH51-I-7/02 Rev D

SH52

·         SH52-E-7/01 Rev D

·         SH52-E-7/02 Rev F

·         SH52-E-7/-SP/03 Rev E

·         SH52-I-7/01 Rev D

·         SH52-I-7/02 Rev B

SH55

·         SH55-E-7/01 Rev C

·         SH55-E-7/02 Rev C

SH54

·         SH54-E-7/01 Rev A

·         SH54-E-7/02 Rev A

Ancillary

Bin Store Plots 202-207

·         H7931/BS/01 Rev A

Bin Store Plots 179 – 184

·         H7931/BS/02 Rev C

Bin Store Plots 154 – 162

·         H7931/BS/03 Rev B

Double Garage Plots 1 & 2

·         H7931/G/01 Rev A

Single Garage

·         H7931/G/02 Rev A

Double Garage

·         H7931/G/03 Rev A

Twin Garage

·         H7931/G/04 Rev A

Single Garage Plot 4

·         H7931/G/05 Rev A

Brick Wall Detail

·         H7931/SW/01

Close Boarded Timber Fence Detail

·         H7931/CB/01

Post & Rail Fence Detail

·         DB-SD13-007

Timber Gate Detail

·         H7931/TG/01

Timber Shed Detail

·         H7931/CS/01

Cycle Shelter Detail

·         H7931/CSH/01

Landscaping

Soft Landscaping

·         1607/P66 Rev H Sheets 1 - 7

Surface finished and kerb specification

·         3201-NORTH-ICS-XX-DR-C_004.1-C03(A)

·         3201-NORTH-ICS-XX-DR-C_004.2-C03(A)

·         3201-NORTH-ICS-XX-DR-C_004.3-C03(A)

·         3201-NORTH-ICS-XX-DR-C_004.4-P05(D2)

·         3201-NORTH-ICS-XX-DR-C_004.5-P06(D2)

·         3201-NORTH-ICS-XX-DR-C_004.6-P06(D2)

All of the above received on 14 August 2020.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.      Housing Unit and Tenure Mix

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the site wide housing unit and tenure mix received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 September 2020.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of condition 4 of Outline Planning Permission Reference 19/00442/OUTMAJ granted on 25 June 2020 which requires the first reserved matters application to include a schedule of the housing unit and tenure mix for the whole site in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS4, CS6 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

4.     Samples of External Materials

 

No development above slab level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling(s) and hard surfaced areas hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

 

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 WestBerkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site AllocationsDPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality DesignSPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

5.      Strategic Landscape Plan

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the strategic landscape framework plan (drawing ref 1607/P65d) and supporting landscape note (document reference 1607 29D condition 5 Note AW HM 140820) received by the Local Planning Authority on 14 August 2020.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of condition 5 of Outline Planning Permission Reference 19/00442/OUTMAJ granted on 25 June 2020 which requires the first reserved matters application to include a strategic landscape plan for the whole site in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP2, CS13, CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

6.      LEAP and LAPS Detailed Design

Notwithstanding information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until boundary treatment, external lighting, soft and hard landscaping and seating for the LEAP and LAP (identified on drawing H7931/PL/01 rev T) have been provided in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The LEAP and LAP shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the completion of phase 3 of the development (set out on drawing H7931/PHL/01 rev B approved under application reference 18/03020/COND1 on 8 February 2020).

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area, and in the interests of security and safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

7.      Pedestrian/Cycle Access to Oxford Road

Notwithstanding information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until details of the final levels/gradients, boundary treatment and any gates/barriers for the pedestrian/cycle access to Oxford Road adjacent to dwellings identified as ‘8 Link Way’ and ‘Denham’ (identified on drawing H7931/PL/01 rev T) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, and in the interests of safety for users of the pedestrian/cycle link in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

8.      Details of proposed footpath/cycle link and interface with PROW

Notwithstanding information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until details of the new footpaths, their construction specification and means of integration with Public Rights of Way SHAW/4/1 and SHAW/4/4 around the A339 underpass (identified on drawing H7931/PL/01 rev T) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To encourage sustainable modes of transport and to ensure development is integrated with the surrounding public rights of way network in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

9.      Secured via Design Measures

No dwelling shall be occupied until details of a package of ‘Secured by Design’ measures, which include details of the access control systems and post boxes for the approved apartment blocks, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and each respective dwelling shall not be occupied until the measures relevant to that dwelling are implemented in their entirety.

Reason: In the interests of creating a safe and sustainable community in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policy CS13 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

10.    Removal of PD Rights

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement (including side and rear extensions), improvement or other alteration of the dwellinghouses, additions or buildings or enclosures incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouses, or enlargement/alterations to the roofs (including dormer windows) of the dwellinghouses falling within Classes A, B and E as set out below for the respective plots:

·         No permitted development under Class B - Plots 1 to 15, 35, 36, 38 to 42, 44 to 49,51,53 to 56, 58, 63 to 66 to 68, 70 to 73, 78, 80 to 84, 101 to 106, 108, 109, 150, 153, 163 to 166, 170 to 178, 187 to 194,196 to 200, 208, 209, 211,220,221 and 222.

·         No permitted development under Classes A and E - Plots 31 to 34, 57, 63 to 65, 71 to 73, 93, 101, 102, 111 to 113, 116, 124 to 129, 131 to 133, 145, 176, 185 to 192, 212, 219 - 222.

Reason: Taking into the account the significant changes in levels across the site and proposed garden sizes in order to protect neighbouring residential amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

11.    Implementation of Soft Landscaping

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme set out in:

·         Soft landscape drawings ref 1607/P66 Rev H (Sheets 1 – 7);

·         Strategic landscape framework plan (drawing ref 1607/P65d); and

·         Landscape note (document reference 1607 29D condition 5 Note AW HM 140820)

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. The approved landscape buffer planting around the boundaries of the site shall be completed within the first planting season following the completion of phase 1 of the development (set out on drawing H7931/PHL/01 rev B approved under application reference 18/03020/COND1 on 8 February 2020) and all remaining planting shall be completed within the first planting season following completion of phase 4 of the development unless an alternative timetable for implementation is otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping and to protect the character and appearance of the area. The condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP2, CS13, CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

12.    Bus Gate Details (or Alternative vehicular restrictions) to Love Lane

Notwithstanding information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until details of the precise location, specification, method of operation, maintenance and timetable for implementation of the proposed bus gate or alternative means of restricting vehicular access to the application site from the Love Lane has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and free flow of traffic within the local highways infrastructure. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006- 2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

13.    Obscure Glazing

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), the windows identified on the respective dwelling plots below shall be of a top opening design only and shall be fitted with obscure glazing before each respective dwelling is first occupied and thereafter shall be retained in this form. Any replacement windows shall also be of top opening design and incorporate obscure glazing.

Plots 8, 9, 10, 20, 25, 32, 58, 63, 73, 81, 83, 85, 92, 95, 109, 115, 126, 129, 135, 136, 137, 147, 167, 171, 190, 191, 201 and 213 – west facing 1st floor window(s)

Plots 14, 26, 28, 42, 48, 121, 130, 138, 140, 143, 173, 176, 178 and 217 – north facing 1st floor window(s)

Plots 3, 7, 19, 21 to 24, 44, 51, 61, 62, 74, 75, 80, 84 and 86 – east and west facing 1st floor window(s)

Plots 5, 15, 36, 56, 66, 70, 90, 91, 94, 96, 108, 117, 122, 124, 127, 134, 146, 149, 163, 164 and 187 – east facing 1st floor window(s)

Plots 11, 27, 39, 40, 41, 43, 54, 55, 59, 78, 87, 98, 104, 118, 139, 141, 142, 177, 210, 216 and 218 – south facing 1st floor window(s)

Plots 12, 13, 17, 29, 38, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 68, 105, 106, 119 and 120 – north and south facing 1st floor window(s)

Reason: To protect neighbouring residential amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

14.    Allotment Details

Notwithstanding the information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until the detailed specification, timetable for implementation, hard and soft landscaping, proposed levels and boundary treatments for the allotments (identified on drawing H7931/PL/01 rev T) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the allotments are accessible, fit for purpose to encourage their use and to protect the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

15.    School Drop off Areas and on-street Car Parking

Notwithstanding information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied on phase 2 of the development (set out on drawing H7931/PHL/01 rev B approved under application reference 18/03020/COND1 on 8 February 2020) until the detailed specification of the school drop off areas with associated car parking, strategy for their maintenance and timetable for implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and free flow of traffic within the local highways infrastructure. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006- 2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

16.    Cycle parking

No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated cycle parking has been 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. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

17.    Pumping Station and Substation Details

Notwithstanding the information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until the detailed design and specification (including noise emission levels), hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatments for the pumping station and electric substation (identified on drawing H7931/PL/01 rev T) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect neighbouring residential amenity and to protect the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

18.    Electric Vehicle Charging Points

No dwelling shall be occupied until details of electric vehicle charging points have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and each respective dwelling which is allocated an electric charging point shall not be occupied until the electric charging point relevant to that dwelling is provided. The charging point shall thereafter be retained and kept available for the potential use of an electric car.

Reason: To promote the use of electric vehicles and to encourage sustainable modes of transport in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocation DPD and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

19.    Layout and Design Standards

The detailed layout of the site shall comply with the Local Planning Authority's standards in respect of road and footpath design and vehicle parking and turning provision. To ensure the provision of adoptable roads, the developer shall enter into a S38 Agreement for the adoption of the site. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications to these matters which have been given in the current application.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and flow of traffic and to ensure satisfactory waste collection. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

20.    Visibility Splays

Visibility splays shall be provided in accordance with drawing number H7931/PL/01/T dated August 21st 2020. The land within these visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.6 metres above the carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests of road safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

21.    Parking/Turning in Accord with Plans

No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated vehicle parking and/or turning space have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plan(s). The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Additional Informative Notes

1.    Housing Mix

For the avoidance of doubt, the applicant is advised the development shall be carried out in the accordance with updated housing mix table (which updated references to affordable and social rent) received by the Local Planning Authority via email on 25 September 2020

2.    External Lighting

In discharging outline planning condition 22 of 19/00442/OUTMAJ which requires the submission of external lighting details, the applicant is advised to take in account emerging guidance ‘Dark Skies of the North Wessex Downs AONB – Guide to Good External Lighting (September 2020)’ to minimise light pollution and to preserve the beautiful dark skies of the AONB.

Supporting documents: