Agenda item

Councillors Jeff Beck, Andy Moore and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the Planning and Highways Committee of Newbury Town Council which had considered the application, but reported that, as their interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Adrian Abbs declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2), and that it was situated within his ward.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/01784/FULD in respect of the proposed demolition of existing 2 bedroom bungalow (no. 235 Andover Road) along with existing garage, and erection of 2 No. dwellings, external alterations to Newbury House and associated landscaping at 237 and 235 Andover Road, Newbury, West Berkshire, RG14 6NG.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Team Leader – Development Control, 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 in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that there was a Highways section within the main report, but noted that a number of changes had occurred. Mr Goddard noted that the two new houses would generate eight vehicle movements each per day, with the flats generating an additional four in total. As it was situated on an A road, Mr Goddard considered this negligible. Mr Goddard noted that the access had been widened to allow fire service access, while he was not convinced they could turn in easily fronting the new dwellings, the statutory requirement was only that the fire service could get within 45 metres, which was achievable. Mr Goddard noted that there were 22 car parking spaces recommended, of which the application set out 21, which was not enough to raise an objection, but Mr Goddard hoped to work with the applicant to rectify this matter, and recommended amending Condition 9 to require further information. In conclusion, Highways did not object to the proposed application.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council representative, Martyn Rees, objector, and Luke Challenger and Ian Blake, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.     Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Foot noted that the application had come before Newbury Town Council on two occasions. Newbury Town Council objected to the first due to concerns about traffic on Dormer Close, and the properties on the south of the site and their impact on access. The properties on the south of the site were not present on the second application with access now on to Andover Road, and so Newbury Town Council raised no objection.

·         Mr Foot noted that the resident living at 12 Dormer Close pointed out that there was an underground water tank near Newbury House, and concerns had been raised that nothing had been done about the tank, which could have an impact on nearby properties if it became a sinkhole. Mr Foot recommended that a condition be made requiring a land survey.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.     The Chairman noted that the underground water tank had been raised but was considered to be a civil matter between the owners of the land concerned, and a matter of surveying the land, but it was not a planning matter. Mr Simon Till concurred.

Objector Representation

7.     Mr Martyn Rees in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Rees noted that he was raising objections on behalf of himself and his wife, Ms Jacqui Fidler, and Mr Malcolm and Mrs Laura Curtis.

·         Mr and Mrs Curtis were concerned about the possible damage to the underground water tank, below the wall separating their property from the adjacent allotment. The tank had been in use since 1985, was 4 metres wide, and was vulnerable to fracture from heavy vehicles.

·         Mr Rees and his wife were concerned at the loss of amenities for the residents of Newbury House from the redevelopment of the allotment, which had been in use from the 1950s to the early 2000s.

·         Additionally, they considered that there was an environmental loss in the development of the allotment, as it was a home for birds, bats and foxes. It was one of the Government’s aims to build garden communities, and allotments were mentioned in Paragraph 91 of the NPPF as having a role in protecting healthy lifestyles, and were protected by the Allotment Act 1925.

Member Questions to the Objector

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked how far into the 2000s the allotments had been used. Mr Rees responded that his wife had been in contact with a woman who had used it until 2004.

Agent Representation

9.     Mr Luke Challenger, Black Box Planning, and Mr Ian Blake, iB Architects, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Challenger noted that the application had been subject to negotiation with officers and revisions to ensure that it was acceptable. The original application sought permission for four new dwellings.

·         Mr Challenger noted that the applicant was Sovereign Housing Association and that the funds from selling the dwellings would pay for internal and external renovations of Newbury House. There was additionally an amenity plan to provide enhancements to their amenities.

·         The applicants were working on further tree protection measures for approval by officers.

Member Questions to the Agent

10.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked what the applicant’s intentions were in retaining the properties as social housing. Mr Challenger responded that the applicant, Sovereign Housing Association, would rent out those units. Councillor Vickers asked whether the applicant would be content with a condition to that effect. Mr Challenger responded that the planned scheme had been negotiated with Planning Officers.

11.  Councillor Abbs asked where the outlines of the sold properties would be. Mr Challenger responded that the planning application was set out so the parking spaces would be accessible. Councillor Abbs asked how the EV charging points would work. Mr Challenger responded that those would be for the houses. Councillor Abbs noted that there were solar panels on the roof, but solar gain had not been considered, and asked whether thought had been put into maximisation. Mr Blake responded that they had to look at the layout of the site, but it had been considered.

12.  Councillor Jeff Beck noted that the planning application did not mention solar panels for Newbury House. Mr Blake responded that there were photovoltaic cells for each house, but not with Newbury House itself.

13.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked what would be done to add the additional parking space. Mr Blake responded that there was space for an additional parking space and it could be added.

14.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked whether there would be sufficient space within the flats for two bedrooms. Mr Blake responded that there would be sufficient space.

15.  The Chairman asked for an overview of what would happen to the outside of the house when it was renovated. Mr Blake responded that the fabric of the building would be looked at, but it would be painted and have windows replaced, as well as insulation.

16.  Councillor Abbs asked whether more complex renovation would require additional planning permission. Mr Blake stated that it would if they concluded that more complex renovation was necessary.

Ward Member Representation

17.  Councillor David Marsh in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Marsh noted that the application was far better than the original application, and credited this to the case manager and Sovereign Housing Association. Councillor Marsh noted that a lot of work had been done to address the concerns of residents, such as moving some of the proposed properties to the west.

·         Councillor Marsh noted that he was concerned about the size of the gap between the two houses, and asked the Committee to look closely at that.

·         Councillor Marsh noted that he was concerned that the underground water tank was not considered to be a planning matter, as it could be disturbed and was important to residents, and that it was unreasonable to expect them to take legal action to protect it.

·         Councillor Marsh noted that he did not think Sovereign Housing Association came out well from the process, as Newbury House was shown to be in a state of disrepair and residents had to be rehoused in some cases.

·         Councillor Marsh expressed scepticism that the development would improve biodiversity as the field was already full of wildlife.

·         Councillor Marsh expressed surprise that there were no EV charging points for residents in flats.

·         Councillor Marsh suggested that those that had been forced to move out of Newbury House should be allowed to be given first refusal to move back in once the renovations had completed.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

18.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

19.  Councillor Culver asked whether it was possible for electric vehicle charging points to be made as a condition. Mr Till responded that the Committee had to consider whether conditions were reasonable and necessary. In this case, the policy does not set out that EV charging points were necessary to be provided to existing dwellings, and so a condition would go beyond what was considered reasonable and necessary. Mr Goddard noted that Condition 7 required information regarding EV charging points to be submitted, and that he would like to see them installed.

20.  Councillor Culver asked whether there had been a Cumulative Impact Study done for drainage. Mr Till responded that drainage engineers had been consulted, which was the best that the Council could do regarding drainage.

21.  Councillor Culver noted that the new Local Plan policies, although consultation was ongoing, still held weight. Mr Till responded that the Regulation 19 consultation began on Friday, and so advice from policy officers was that the weight of the draft policies were extremely limited, as they had not yet been consulted on or examined by the Planning Inspectorate.

22.  Councillor Culver asked what the Ecologist had concluded in their report regarding the biodiversity of the site. Mr Till responded that the findings of the Ecology Survey were confidential and would have to be discussed under Part II, and no documentation had been prepared. Mr Till did however state that the Ecologist had raised no objection. Councillor Culver expressed surprise that it would be necessary to have a Part II discussion over biodiversity, and suggested that it be done in future.

23.  Councillor Vickers noted that biodiversity net gain was not confidential, and suggested that there be some nod towards Regulation 19 policy on it. Mr Till referred Councillor Vickers to the Ecologist’s response, but could not go further due to confidentiality. Councillor Vickers noted that biodiversity net gain was not mentioned in the Conditions, and asked whether that could be included. Mr Till responded that the Condition was that the Ecological Survey be adhered to, and the Ecologist was satisfied on that basis.

24.  Councillor Vickers asked whether social housing could be set as a condition, and noted that it was a valuable resource. Mr Till reminded the Committee that they were being asked to consider the current application, which did not include further social housing provisions. Councillor Vickers asked what the Council could do if the applicant later decided to sell the social housing. Mr Till responded that in the case of some developments those would be secured by Section 106 agreements.

25.  Councillor Beck noted that one of the proposed new dwellings could be fitted with additional car parking spaces, and asked who would enforce that. Mr Goddard responded that both Planning and Highways would enforce it.

26.  Councillor Andy Moore noted that the application online stated that there would be four additional dwellings, and asked for confirmation that there were two. Mr Till responded that the application had been resubmitted and the most important thing was the improved plans. Councillor Moore noted that the amended application had very few objections, and suggested that the Committee might not have needed to determine the application. The Chairman noted that a number of objections had been satisfied.

27.  Councillor Abbs asked how many parking spaces were required per dwelling. Mr Goddard responded that it was 2.5.

28.  Councillor Benneyworth asked for clarification that further development would require an additional application. Mr Till responded that it would.

29.  Councillor Beck asked why there would not be solar panels on Newbury House. Mr Till responded that as Newbury House was an existing site it could not be imposed as an additional condition, and as it was a heritage site the addition of solar panels to the application would be difficult. Councillor Beck asked whether it could be added as a condition. Mr Till suggested that it went beyond the scope of the works which had been applied for.

30.  The Chairman asked whether the road access required a right of way, or whether it went into the issue of private access. Mr Goddard responded that it was a civil matter.

Debate

31.  Councillor Vickers opened the debate, and stated that he considered the work to be long overdue. However, Councillor Vickers noted that it was a valuable social housing resource, and suggested the addition of a condition requiring a Section 106 agreement regarding the social housing contribution. Councillor Vickers additionally suggested a condition on biodiversity, and expressed surprise that it was not mentioned in the conditions.

32.  Councillor Abbs noted that the anomaly he saw was that Sovereign Housing Association were required to build housing to provide social housing, and he was unsure how that requirement had arisen or how it could be strengthened. Councillor Abbs noted that the situation regarding the allotment was also unresolved. However, Councillor Abbs regarded that he would vote for Officer’s recommendations conditional on the issue of parking being resolved.

33.  The Chairman asked what a condition on biodiversity would look like. Councillor Cant stated that the condition should state that the applicant follows the recommendations of the Ecologist.

34.  The Chairman additionally noted that the underground water tank was an issue, but that it was a civil matter. Councillor Beck stated that the issues were that the tank was substantial, and the residents had a right to use it, but expressed that it should be incorporated into the application somewhere. The Chairman questioned how it could be worked on as a civil matter.

35.  Councillor Howard Woollaston proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Cant.

36.  The Chairman set out that the additional conditions were on biodiversity net gain, a Section 106 agreement on social housing, and parking spaces.

37.  Mr Till reminded the Committee that Section 106 agreements should be used to mitigate the impacts of developments, and that the application was merely a renovation and upgrading, and so there was little within the policy that captured the need. Councillor Vickers agreed, and withdrew the request for a condition.

38.  Councillor Vickers requested that the Ward Members were able to see the confidential Ecologist’s report. Mr Till suggested that a condition be set that prior to commencement of any work, details would be provided to demonstrate that the development would achieve the 10% biodiversity net gain.

39.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Cant to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Informatives