Agenda item

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he lived fairly near to the site being discussed. 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/03256/RESMAJ in respect of an application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following outline planning permission 15/02842/OUTMAJ (allowed on appeal) - 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.

2.     Ms Emma Nutchey 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 - Development and Regulation be authorised to grant approval of reserved matters subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update reports.

3.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Zoe Fenwick and Mr Gary Miles (Theale) Parish Council representatives, Ms Emma Runesson and Mr Jon Regent (Ridgepoint Homes), applicant, and Councillor Alan Macro, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.     Ms Fenwick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Theale Parish Council had a lot of concerns regarding the development. It was appreciated that the number of dwellings proposed for the site had been reduced. There would still however be at least a 20 percent increase in the residential population of Theale if the proposal was approved.

·         It was asked what measures the Local Authority would put in place to make the development acceptable in planning terms in relation to the highways infrastructure. The road that traffic would join when exiting the site was already very busy particularly the roundabout. The proposal could generate an extra 600 vehicles movements on the road during peak times.

·         It was queried how the education needs of new residents would be catered for. Both schools in the area were already very well subscribed.

·         The sewage network was already at capacity. A further 300 homes would place increased pressure on to the network.

·         It was queried what community space was being incorporated into the development to help new residents become part of the wider Theale community. This also included green space and supporting the biodiversity as there were populations of nightingales and water voles that were particularly endangered. It was queried how the site would be brought in line with the Local Authority’s own Environmental Strategy.

·         Ms Fenwick on behalf of Theale Parish Council requested that if the proposal was approved then the Local Authority consider removing PD rights to the properties so that attic, loft spaces and garages could not be converted as this would increase on street parking and also make access for emergency and utility vehicles difficult.

·         Finally Ms Fenwick stated that the Parish Council acknowledged the previously approved planning application however, pointed out that there were no other properties in the vicinity of the development that were over three storeys. It was felt that the height of some of the buildings proposed would damage the character of the area and the village itself.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.     Councillor Graham Bridgman highlighted that the Local Authority’s parking policies did not count garages as part of the number of parking spaces. This was deliberate as it was known residents often converted garages. If garages were converted and the application complied with parking policies then the right number of spaces would remain even after any garages had been converted. Councillor Bridgman asked Ms Fenwick if she accepted this as a point of principle in the Committee’s consideration of the application.  Ms Fenwick confirmed that the Parish Council were aware of this point and explained that as families grew, garages became an obvious point for development which placed more cars on the road. Ms Fenwick understood it was included as part of the policy however, it was about considering people’s future action.

6.     Councillor Bridgman stated that he had been looking at the decision the Local Authority had taken back in December 2016 and highlighted that he had been on the Committee at the time. One of the major points that had been raised by the Parish Council and residents was the height of the buildings proposed. He asked how effectively the Parish Council felt the outline permission dealt with the height of buildings on the site and if the current application was in compliance with it. Ms Fenwick reported that the Parish Council were aware that it was likely not much could be done however, wished to raise the point that there were no other buildings in the area of that height. The Parish Council had always been strongly opposed to the development since it had started to go through the planning process in 2004. The Parish Council wanted to preserve the character of the village as a whole. Councillor Bridgman stated he recalled activity around the site starting in 1994 when he had been a Governor at Theale Green School and even then it had been an area of contention.

Applicant Representation

7.     Mr Regent in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         As detailed in the Committee report it was a brownfield site and had a long and varied planning history. 

·         The application before Members had been negotiated with Officers over the last 16 months. The parameter plans had been identified and set out very clearly what could and could not be developed on the site. The Council’s adopted policies had also been followed.

·         Mr Regent thanked Members, the Parish Council and residents for attending the site visit and stated that he wished to respond to each of the points raised.

·         Regarding scale, the site was capable of developing 325 dwellings and it was being proposed that only 299 be developed, which was a reduction of 26. Through the parameter plans it had been identified that three, four and even five storey units could be developed on the site, with ridge heights up to 14 metres. Nothing at five storeys was being proposed.

·         During the course of the negotiations several dwellings were removed from the reserved matters application and the storey heights were reduced in a number of locations. In particular at plot one, which was adjacent to 41 The Green. Changes had also been made to the southern lake edge in terms of the articulation of the proposed flats.

·         The dwellings on the green were generally fronting and reflecting a two storey development with rooms in the roof and were of a red brick character.

·         In terms of the relationship to houses on the north lakeshore, these had been designed in line with the parameter plans and the offset distances exceeded what was required.

·         The removal of PD rights on dwellings had recently been agreed, which had been one of the concerns raised by the Parish Council.

·         The extant permission had been agreed for 350 dwellings and Mr Regent reiterated that most of this was four and five storey. This was not something that would be pursued and the scheme before the Committee was preferred by Ridgepoint Homes, if Members were minded to approve it.  

·         The Northshore area had been excluded from the area allocated for 350 dwellings and if the 350 was developed it was likely the scheme would increase to 400 dwellings. This was not what Ridgepoint Homes wished to do.

·         It was hoped that Members could recognise the level of quality being sought from the development through the CGI plans. The design of the extant scheme was contemporary and not in keeping with the village of Theale.

·         Regarding traffic the outline permission had been tested and subject to a traffic assessment and was below the necessary levels.

·         Proposed parking exceeded the Local Authority’s standards. There were no garages proposed as part of the scheme. Garages were proposed for the nine consented units but there were no garages proposed for the main site.

·         There were extensive landscaped areas included within the proposal, including native planting agreed with the Tree Officer and Ecologist. This would mitigate the impact from the loss of any trees and contributed to the biodiversity net gain. The woodland in the south east corner would be retained and enhanced with a play area. There would be a footpath link to the station from the site. A Lakeland walk would be provided as part of the site, which was over one kilometre going all the way around the lake and would be accessible to those living in and outside of the development.

·         Regarding local facilities, Ridgepoint Homes fully appreciated the impact developments placed on local services. If the scheme was approved then there would be a CIL contribution of £2m towards the Local Authority. Mr Regent believed that part of the contribution would go to the parish, which might not fully mitigate all problems experienced but would help.

·         In conclusion Mr Regent thanked Planning Officers for their report and for working with Ridgepoint Homes over the past 16 months. Mr Regent asked for Members’ support on the application to enable delivery on the brownfield site that had been outstanding for many years.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

8.     Councillor Bridgman noted that when presenting the report, Planning Officers rightly stated that consideration needed to be given to the current application and not the other two extant applications however, he wished to explore the process of the application with Mr Regent. Councillor Bridgman noted that Mr Regent had referred to 290 dwellings including 70 extra care units. The intention, as he understood it, was to replace the 70 units, if an application was submitted and successful, with 54 units in order to do two things. Firstly, change the profile but also achieve a 30 percent brownfield percentage of affordable housing as opposed to the 40 percent referred to in the Parish Council’s objection to the application for 54. Councillor Bridgman asked Mr Regent if he was right in understanding that this was the intention if all applications with the Local Authority were approved. Councillor Bridgman understood that the figure of 70 extra care units was a historic figure and stated that he was intrigued by the thought process behind it. He queried whether any modelling had been carried out on demand.

9.     In response to Councillor Bridgman, Mr Regent confirmed that his figures were correct and they would be seeking to reduce the numbers further. The outline permission was subject to a viability assessment and under this assessment it was agreed that there would be 12.5 percent affordable housing put forward which equated to 41 dwellings. The market had been tested to see if there was demand for a care home. Numerous operators had been approached and there had been very little interest although it was acknowledged that the property market was currently very challenging. There was a risk that a position would be reached where all the infrastructure was delivered whilst having an area of the site that was unlikely to be put forward due to there not being an operator in place. In discussions with Officers, including the Affordable Housing Team, the alternative of getting rid of the late stage review mechanism in the unilateral had been explored as had the submission of 30 percent affordable housing. It was hoped that when this was submitted it would be considered as something positive by Members.

10.  Councillor Geoff Mayes had noted from the drawings that there was a bridge and causeway proposed for the lake and he queried if this was going to be included if permission was granted. Mr Regent stated that as part of the outline masterplan there were indicative masterplans put forward to explain what the constraints of the site were. The bridge or causeway referred to had formed part of the original indicative plans and would not form part of the current proposal if approved. Instead there would be an extended walkway around the lake. 

Ward Member Representation

11.  Councillor Macro in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The site had been described as scrub land, which was accurate at the current time however, he had lived in the area many years and had often walked around the lake, which was very pleasant and amongst trees. There had been various land management and owners over the years and many trees had been felled leading to the site not being as attractive as it once was.

·         Councillor Macro agreed with the Parish Council’s concerns regarding the height of buildings and density of the site, which he did not feel was appropriate for the age of the village. The area was stuck with the development following the Appeal Inspector’s decision.

·         It had been mentioned as part of the appeal that high density was required for viability purposes. Councillor Macro thought viability would have been considered when the land was purchased rather than when it was built out.

·         Councillor Macro’s major concern was regarding noise from the bypass, which had increased dramatically since many of the trees had been felled. He had found a document on the website called the ‘Noise Control Scheme’ which was a report on noise modelling and included monitoring information for validation purposes. Councillor Macro stated that he had issues with this monitoring in that it was done on the 21^st – 22^nd October 2021 and the 22^nd had fallen during half term. This was also at a time when the country was recovering from Covid and therefore the traffic levels were much lower. There were particular spots along the bypass that were only monitored between 11.40am and 2.40pm, missing the peak times and also school traffic. Councillor Macro felt that the monitoring had therefore not been completed when the traffic was at its maximum.

·         Councillor Macro requested, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, that the area be subjected to further traffic monitoring being completed at times that were more appropriate and typical. The modelling could then be revalidated and if required noise prevention measures could be looked at again.

·         Councillor Macro noted that the Planning Officer had mentioned the 1.8m border fence. This was only along the bypass and did not continue on along the roundabout where there would only be post and rail fencing. The extra care homes would therefore be exposed to full traffic noise from vehicles using the roundabout and also headlights.

·         Councillor Macro noted in the Drainage Officer’s report that piling would be used where the flats were proposed. He therefore requested that the standard piling condition be added if permission was granted.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

12.  Councillor Bridgman sought clarification of the position of the Local Authority on the original application. He noted that Councillor Macro had referred to the appeal and Councillor Bridgman had assumed this had been an appeal against the refusal of planning permission, but it had actually been an appeal on other grounds. Councillor Bridgman asked Councillor Macro if he agreed that the decision of the Eastern Area Planning Committee in January 2017 was to grant planning permission on the basis of the outline proposal. Councillor Macro was unable to provide clarification on this point. Councillor Bridgman confirmed he had the minutes of the meetings and that this was the case.

13.  Councillor Ross Mackinnon queried if it would be fair to assume that traffic on the roundabout would be travelling at a much lower speed than along the bypass and therefore a higher level of noise abatement might not be required. Councillor Mackinnon however, agreed regarding the impact from headlights. Councillor Macro agreed the traffic would be going slower however, would be changing gear. There would be more traffic than on the bypass because there would be traffic coming from the Pangbourne direction and from Theale heading towards Newbury or towards Pangbourne.  Also, on the opposite side of the bypass to the site, there was a large number of depots supplying aggregate, cement, asphalt and oil and therefore many trucks emanated from there during the day. At night there were also increased numbers of HGVs originating from Thatcham travelling towards the M4 that would need to negotiate the roundabout. This could cause a lot of disruption at night.

Member Questions to Officers

14.  Councillor Macro noted that Mr Regent had described the land as a brownfield site, which was not technically correct as it was a restored mineral working area. Ms Nutchey reported that this matter had been looked at in detail including the definition in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and a conclusion had not been reached regarding whether the land was brownfield or greenfield. The land had been restored, however what was material to the current application included looking at the extant permissions, which could have been implemented.

15.  Councillor Richard Somner noted that 600 vehicle movements had been mentioned. The highways report within the paperwork focused on parking and Councillor Somner therefore asked Mr Goddard if he had any data regarding vehicle movements.  The Chairman provided Mr Goddard with time to locate any information that he had available and moved on to the next question.

16.  Councillor Somner highlighted that the other area that had been raised was the land at the roundabout end of the site. He asked if Ms Nutchey had any plans that showed landscaping in this area. He was conscious of development currently taking place at Dorking Way, which backed on to the motorway. For the Dorking Way development there was a fence that went along the motorway section however, it did not continue up to the roundabout, which felt like a similar situation to the current application. Councillor Somner asked if Ms Nutchey had any information to inform the Committee about that end of the site.

17.  Ms Nutchey reported that a noise assessment had been undertaken, which had assessed noise across different areas of the site. A conclusion had been reached that an acoustic fence was not required. The scheme had been designed with its proximity to the road in mind. Buildings would be set back and double glazed with gardens set behind the buildings so the building would effectively become a noise barrier. The extra care units looked on to the roundabout but wrapped around the amenity space, meaning it would be quieter. Landscaping was proposed to supplement screening and be a barrier to noise.

18.  Councillor Bridgman stated that he had a point of clarification for Councillor Macro’s benefit whilst waiting for the information from Mr Goddard. He stated that he had been looking at the previous decision and stated that 40 percent affordable housing was what had been recommended by Officers. There was no percentage included in the minutes but it was likely included in the Part II debate. The number the Committee had agreed on was 27. Councillor Bridgman stated that the decision that had been taken was indicative because the appeal had already commenced for non-determination. 

19.  In response to Councillor Somner’s question regarding traffic figures, Mr Goddard explained that the site had a very long history of planning consent. The second outline application in 2015 had projected 1158 traffic movements (half travelling in and half travelling out of the site) per day. During peak hours 142 traffic movements had been projected. The scheme included in the current planning application was a little bit smaller and included a care home rather than houses.  Taking this in to account the projection could be amended to 1056 movements per day. During peak hours of the day about 130 traffic movements would be expected.

20.  The Chairman raised the point that the Ward Member had asked about further noise monitoring. He asked if this was a legitimate request for the Committee to make if it was minded to grant permission. Ms Nutchey reported that the application was accompanied by a noise survey. The survey had been reviewed by Environmental Health and they were satisfied that the survey had been carried out in accordance with the required standards. There was also a condition on the outline permission which required noise levels not to exceed certain volumes and the scheme adhered to this. Ms Nutchey did not believe it would be reasonable to add a further condition regarding noise monitoring as it was an area that had already been explored.

Debate

21.  Councillor Tony Linden stated the site had a very long history and recalled it receiving planning permission in the mid 1980s when he joined the Local Authority. His personal view was that the site had planning permission for a much larger number of dwellings, if the care home area was excluded. Councillor Linden felt that the proposal was a vast improvement on this and therefore he was minded to support the Officer’s recommendation. 

22.  Councillor Jeremy Cottam stated that he was very concerned about the noise impact on residents. He encouraged the Committee to look again at whether acoustic fencing should be provided. There was a risk of a precedent being set. Fencing near the M4 was much further back whereas for the current application the fencing was adjacent to the A4. Councillor Cottam felt that future noise proofing needed to be provided to cope with the rising levels of traffic including HGVs. If there was a break in a barrier it reduced the effect of preventing the noise. The site was extremely close to a major road that saw around 22000 vehicle movements per day and therefore Councillor Cottam felt this justified further noise protection measures being put in place.

23.  Councillor Somner referred back to acoustic fencing. He stated that there were two areas with acoustic fencing within his ward including the Dorking Way development and the other was along the A4. The acoustic fencing in these areas was very efficient. Regarding the Dorking Way development, there was no acoustic fencing by the roundabout and this had been mentioned several times at site visits, including since development of the site at Dorking Way has started.

24.  Councillor Somner was aware of the long history of the site and he felt that the proposal could be good for the area in some ways as it would tidy up the area. The design of the development looked sympathetic and was not completely out of context for the area. Councillor Somner stated he was leaning towards supporting the application.

25.  The Chairman asked for the Planning Officer’s guidance regarding the acoustic fencing. He understood the points that had been made about acoustic fencing and that the relevant experts, including Environmental Health Officers, had not put in a condition recommending it. Given the situation he sought guidance on what flexibility there was or if it would be unreasonable to add a condition. Ms Nutchey explained that the Committee needed to bear in mind that conditions needed to be reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable. The application was supported by the noise survey, which concluded an acoustic fencing was not necessary and therefore Ms Nutchey stated she would be concerned about the inclusion of a condition. If it was however a strong concern for Members then it was probably something the applicant could address through a condition. The Chairman queried if an advisory could be included rather than a condition, which stated that acoustic fencing could be provided in the future if needed on completion of the development. The Chairman had listened to Ms Nutchey explain that the buildings had been arranged in such a way as to form a noise barrier and he was concerned about adding a condition that was not legitimate. 

26.  Ms Mather stated that she had looked at the detail of the noise assessment and it relied on treatment to the facade of the buildings and windows to reduce the sound levels and was why an acoustic fence was not proposed. The development could meet the maximum noise levels in the condition the Inspector had applied as shown in the noise assessment. The Chairman stated that the reason why he was probing the matter was because he was aware that there were similar and even taller buildings that had an extant permission that a Planning Inspector would have been aware of when taking the noise in to the account. The Chairman was concerned about adding conditions when the scheme under consideration was broadly similar to a scheme that did not have acoustic fencing. It was important that any condition added was reasonable.

27.  Councillor Macro stated that he had not necessarily been asking for an acoustic barrier but rather that the monitoring be repeated in a more typical environment. If this then indicated that an acoustic barrier was required then this would have to be dealt with. Councillor Macro also noted the other application to replace the extra care provision with flats and this was relying on the same monitoring period. Any further monitoring would cover two planning applications. The Chairman accepted the point however, reminded the Committee that they had to consider the application in front of them.

28.  Councillor Bridgman agreed that the focus was on the current application. He agreed entirely with the point about the extra care housing. There was an application based on an extant permission for the 70 extra care units. He understood that the applicant’s intention had been to provide a care home.  

29.  Regarding noise, Councillor Bridgman stated that there was an extant permission for more dwellings than what was being proposed. He was always keen to ameliorate the impact of development and when an applicant came forward with a smaller scheme than they had permission for, he was minded to view this favourably. Regarding the issue of noise, this would also depend on the market and whether people would buy properties that faced directly on to the road if acoustic fencing was not in place.  Councillor Bridgman stated he was minded to support the application.

30.  Councillor Linden referred to the matter of the acoustic fencing and the Dorking Way development where he had noticed the noise. There was also the Theale Community Fire Station in the area, which suffered noise as well as the Police operating from the station. Councillor Linden referred to the points made by Ms Mather and stated that people did enjoy spending time outside of their properties and noise was not just a factor inside of buildings. 

31.  Councillor Somner raised a concern about the increased population for Theale and available health care facilities if the development went ahead, which he was aware was a key concern of his local Parish Council. He understood it was not about providing doctors, which was a separate conversation. 

32.  Councillor Somner 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 Bridgman.

33.  Councillor Macro stated he was disappointed about the noise issue and asked that the standard piling condition be included. Ms Nutchey explained that a piling condition had been included in the outline application. It was a matter that was normally dealt with at the outline stage and the inspector had dealt with it appropriately. It was therefore not felt it would be necessary to include the condition again at the current stage.

34.  Councillor Cottam referred to Councillor Linden’s comments regarding people enjoying the area where they lived. Unless the units were air conditioned residents would need to open their windows in the summer. He understood why other Councillors would vote in favour of permission being granted however, it was an important point for him. Noise could ruin people’s lives and the small addition of some acoustic fencing would be beneficial.

35.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner, seconded by Councillor Bridgman to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

Conditions