Agenda item

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he knew some of the objectors and he also lived around 100m from the site. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00146/RESMAJ in respect of a Section 73 application for variation of condition 2 (to allow for 9 dwellings), condition 3 (vary the phasing plan), condition 4 (materials), condition 9 (levels), condition 11 (landscaping), condition 14 (vehicle parking & turning), following grant of planning permission 20/00663/RESMAJ - Approval of reserved matters application for phase 1 (of the development, which was for 7 dwellings located off St Ives Close, details include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following Outline Permission Allowed on Appeal 15/02842/OUTMAJ (APP/W0340/W/16/ 3159722) – Outline application for Residential development of up to 325 houses and apartments (including 70 extra-care units) with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping. All matters reserved.

Mr Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the item which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Zoe Fenwick, Theale Parish Council representative, and Ms Sylvia Fowler, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

Ms Fenwick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Theale Parish Council had objections to raising the number of houses from seven to nine, on the basis that it would change the character of the existing St Ives Close development – the 11 existing dwellings were mostly bungalows and the new dwellings would effectively be three storey houses.

·         Residents in St Ives Close and Volunteer Road would be overlooked.

·         There would be a 25-30% increase in traffic. St Ives Close was a small road with limited parking and there were already concerns about refuse vehicles being able to access the site adequately. Issues experienced by residents and refuse / utility vehicles would be exacerbated by the increased traffic.

·         The Parish Council had concerns about drainage and impacts on the environment as a result of removal of trees, bushes and vegetation required to deliver the required changes to the road layout.

·         The site was significantly higher than St Ives Road and the Parish Council was concerned about the impact of works to address this.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

There were no questions of clarification for the Parish Council.

Objector Representation

Ms Fowler in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She lived in a property on Volunteer Road that backed onto the site.

·         Under the approved plan for seven houses, there would be only one house adjacent to her property, which would be side-on with no facing windows and a large garden. However, under the new application for nine houses, there would be two properties backing onto her property with windows overlooking her garden and much smaller gardens.

·         The proposed houses would be very high and would have a detrimental impact, blocking light and devaluing her property.

·         She asked the Committee to take account of the impact of the proposal on the residents of Volunteer Close.

Member Questions to the Objector

Members sought clarification about the orientation of the nearest property under the approved layout. It was confirmed that under the approved permission, there would be one property that would be side-on with one obscured glazed window on the first floor. Under the new application there would be two properties that would back onto the properties on Volunteer Road with multiple windows at first floor level and in the roof.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Alan Macro in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He knew the site well.

·         There was outline permission for up to 325 homes with permission granted for seven homes in Phase 1.

·         There were several differences between this application and the approved one:

o   All houses in the new application were 2.5 storeys rather than 2 storeys.

o   There were eight five-bed homes and one four-bed home in the new application, while the approved application had just one five-bed home.

o   The property known as The Ramblers would have three houses backing onto it and one sideways on, which would be much closer than in the previous scheme.

o   There were two properties backing onto properties in Volunteer Road compared to one that was sideways on in the approved scheme.

o   The new application also had three houses backing onto the bungalow on the west side of St Ives Road and the new property at the end of The Green.

·         Although the proposal met the Council’s parking standards, the standards only went up to homes with three bedrooms, while most of the proposed dwellings in this application had five bedrooms. Also, standards were only achieved by including visitor spaces on the public highway. Most properties had tandem parking layouts and one had three inline spaces, which was impractical and the police had expressed concerns about possible tension between neighbours.

·         The Drainage Officer report highlighted 17 outstanding issues, including:

o   No possibility of swales for sustainable drainage.

o   Proposed soakaways would be inappropriate due to the high water table.

o   Concerns about drainage into the lake, which had no outlet.

·         The parking and drainage concerns suggested that there was too much development proposed for the site.

Questions to the Ward Member

Members noted the police’s concerns about potential conflict arising from the proposed parking layout, but suggested that any disputes would be between the occupants of individual homes rather than between neighbours. Councillor Macro felt that residents of five-bedroom homes would have more than two or three cars, and occupants would find the parking arrangements impractical and would use the visitor spaces instead.

A question was asked about whether Councillor Macro would have had a different view if he had not seen the previous application for seven homes. Councillor Macro indicated that his view would be the same – that the developer was trying to squeeze too much onto the site.

Clarification was sought regarding the location of the visitor spaces. These were shown on the plan between the houses and lake. Councillor Macro suggested that there may be conflict with the bin collection point.

Questions to Officers

Members challenged whether this was a minor amendment and whether a Section 73 application was appropriate. It was confirmed that a Section 73 application could be used to change the conditions on a consent and make material minor amendments. The scope of a Section 73 application would only be exceeded if it fundamentally changed the description of a development. The description of the development related to the outline consent for up to 365 dwellings. However, it was acknowledged that the balance of the housing mix across the site was part of the debate.

Members asked about the comments from Thames Valley Police. Officers were surprised by the comments on parking arrangements, since they had not received similar comments before, and tandem parking layouts were commonplace. Officers did not agree that there would be disputes between neighbours, since parking for each household would be within the property’s curtilage. Regarding the comments on natural surveillance, it was explained that this was usually achieved by roads being overlooked by the fronts of properties. Officers were surprised by the comment, and indicated that they would struggle to substantiate this as a reason for refusal.

It was queried whether the developer was using the visitor spaces to meet the Council’s parking standards, since eight of the properties only had two spaces. It was confirmed that if properties had car ports rather than garages, then they would count as a parking space. Also, it was highlighted that parking standards only covered dwellings with up to four bedrooms and required up to three spaces to be provided. Since Plots 1-3 only had two spaces, they were reliant on the visitor spaces to provide the third space. The Highways Authority could not object to this, since the Council had no standard for visitor spaces for houses (only flats) and overall there was sufficient parking within the site.

Members queried whether the properties had garages rather than car ports. It was confirmed that they were garages and not car ports as originally thought. Since garages were not counted as parking spaces, all of the visitor parking spaces would be used as third parking spaces for the properties, but officers considered that the proposal still complied with the parking standard. This was challenged by Members who noted that there were just 24 spaces on the site, but the parking requirement according to Policy P1 was for 27 spaces. Officers subsequently agreed that there was a shortfall of up to three spaces. It was proposed that this could be addressed via an amendment to Condition 14 to say that parking would be in accordance with details to be submitted, and to seek an amended layout with three spaces for each dwelling. It was noted that there was capacity within the site subject to landscaping considerations. Alternatively, an additional condition could be introduced to make each garage a car port by removing permitted development rights for front doors or seeking amended plans.

A question was asked about access for refuse / utility vehicles. It was explained that the current access was a private street, but the applicant had freehold ownership within the red line shown on the access plan, and the road would be made up to adoptable standard, with improvements to the width and alignment. It was noted that refuse trucks currently reversed down St Ives Road, but the proposed layout would permit them to turn round.

It was suggested that two of the properties could be used as six bedroom homes. Officers noted that there was an extra room that was labelled as a study / store. If this room was to be used as a bedroom by the occupant, that did not constitute development and so could not be controlled by condition.

Concern was expressed that the site was not at the correct level to access the existing foul drainage system. It was explained that Thames Water had raised no objections and there was a condition about finished floor levels that could address this point. Members noted that Thames Water had not responded. Officers confirmed that they had been consulted. It was explained that they were unlikely to object since they had a duty to make connections and would have to accommodate the increase from seven to nine dwellings. They would be more interested in phasing and this would be covered by the outline conditions.

Members also challenged whether additional rooms should be considered as bedrooms whether all properties would have sufficient amenity space given their number of bedrooms. It was explained that the Council’s standard was a minimum of 100m² for dwellings with three or more bedrooms. It was confirmed that all properties exceeded this standard. Buyers would decide whether they were happy with the amenity space. It was also pointed out that future phases of the development covered by the extant permission would have higher densities, which would make it difficult to refuse this application on the grounds of overdevelopment.

Debate

Councillor Alan Law expressed frustration with developers submitting applications with additional development beyond that covered in the original outline permissions. In this case, he felt that the consequences had not been considered in terms of parking and it did not meet the Council’s parking standard. He had been minded to oppose the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, but recognised that there was adequate space within the site, and the Council would be likely to lose at appeal if they were to refuse it on that basis. He proposed to refuse the application on the basis that it did not comply with the adopted parking standard. This was seconded by Councillor Graham Bridgman.

Councillor Richard Somner indicated that he was minded to support the officers’ recommendation, but only on the basis that the parking issue was resolved. He recognised that the developer wanted to provide luxury properties in a wonderful setting. He did not feel that the developer would remove two houses to address the parking shortfall. He suggested that the Committee should not come up with solutions for the developer, but should look at the application as submitted.

Councillor Graham Bridgman expressed surprise that a luxury six bedroom house was proposed with only just over 100m² of amenity space. However, he agreed that if it were not for the parking issue, the Committee would have difficulty in refusing the application. He noted that the parking policy was explicit and if it had been an application for a single property, it would not have got to committee. He agreed with Councillor Law that it should be rejected because it did not meet the parking standard.

Councillor Alan Macro suggested that if the visitor parking area was to be expanded, it would have landscaping implications, and would negatively affect the outlook from the properties. Alternatively, if the garages were converted to car ports, then this would result in three inline parking spaces on driveways, which he considered to be impractical. He felt that the proposal represented overdevelopment, but was content not to ask for this to be added as a reason for refusal. He also felt that the proposal was out of character since it featured 2.5 storey properties, while existing properties were bungalows on large plots.

Councillor Somner noted that the application was within the previously approved height range, so apart from the issue of overlooking, the Committee would be unable to refuse the application on grounds of building heights. He noted that the outline permission was for up to 325 homes, so if Phase 1 was for nine homes instead of seven, he would expect a corresponding reduction in the remaining phases.

The Chairman expressed surprise that it was proposed for visitor spaces to be used by occupants, which would leave nowhere for visitors to park. He asked if the adopted parking standard only required visitor parking for flats. Mr Paul Goddard confirmed that was correct, but suggested that this could be amended in the next Local Plan. He noted that the developer was relying on visitor spaces to meet the parking requirement of the houses, but because they were on the public highway, they could not be allocated to individual properties. He apologised for mistakes made by officers in assessing the parking provision in relation to this application.

The Chairman could not recall another example of a small development where visitor parking had been an issue. Councillor Bridgman understood the concept of visitor parking in relation to flats, since flats had common areas around the building where parking may be allocated or shared. He also understood the concept of visitor parking in relation to houses, since occupants and visitors generally parked within the curtilage. However, in this case, visitor parking would be on the public highway outside the curtilage of the property and would be shared between the properties. He could foresee arguments between residents about the use of these spaces. He felt that future parking standards should be explicit about the number and location of visitor spaces.

Councillor Law noted that the standards were changed in 2016. He stated that the Local Plan was in its final draft and asked Mr Goddard to raise this with Planning Policy as a matter of urgency.

Mr Butler suggested that the sole reason for refusal should be parking, since it would be difficult to defend any other reasons at appeal.

Mr Bob Dray summarised the proposal as being to refuse planning permission on based on insufficient parking contrary to Policy P1 of the Local Plan. He also noted that there were further applications coming forward that would seek to increase the affordable housing percentage, so a deferral could be considered if Members felt that the issues could be addressed. However, he recognised the strong views of Members on this issue.

Mr Goddard observed that developers were increasingly reliant upon on-street parking to meet parking standards and he confirmed that he would take the matter up with the Planning Policy Manager.

Councillor Macro noted that if this application was rejected, then the applicant could still implement the approved proposal for seven homes.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Alan Law and seconded by Councillor Graham Bridgman to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

Reasons

The proposed development fails to comply with the Council's residential parking standards as set out in Policy P1. Under these standards, a total of 27 parking spaces are required for the housing number and mix proposed. Garages are not counted towards this total. The proposed development would have a shortfall of three. In addition, eight of the proposed houses rely on the shared use of visitor spaces within the public realm, which is considered unacceptable and likely to lead to ambiguous ownership and conflicts between neighbours. As such, the development would lead to increase likelihood of on street parking in the wider vicinity which would be hazardous to highway safety and not amount to high quality design. The application is contrary to Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) 2006-2026.