Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/01260/HOUSE in respect of an additional vehicular access and new workshop building.

2.      Ms Kirby 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. He indicated that the existing access to the south of the property would be improved. It was proposed to create an additional access onto the Public Right of Way (PRoW) to the north of the property. PRoW officers had not raised any objection. Vehicular access to the public highway would be unchanged. The property would generate a small number of vehicle movements per day (estimated at three in and three out), which would not be sufficient to warrant refusal. However, the reason for refusal on highway drainage issues remained.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Dr David Thomas and Mr Darren Durham, Parish Council representatives, Ms Briony Malden and Mr Duncan Wolage applicant/agent, and Councillor Tony Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.      Dr Thomas and Mr Durham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The additional access was at an accident black spot on Craven Road – it was felt to be unnecessary and would create additional risk.

·       Craven Road was the main road between Inkpen and Hungerford. While it was well-known by residents, it was not known to visitors and there were frequent altercations on this part of the road.

·       Limited space would result in people reversing from the access onto a blind spot.

·       Without the ability to turn round, vehicles would be forced to continue into Inkpen to find a suitable turning location.

·       The road was not wide enough for vehicles to pass and this location had traditionally been used for vehicles to pull in.

·       Google maps and the site plans did not convey the dangerous nature of this part of the road.

·       For the above reasons, the Parish Council felt that this element should be rejected.

·       It was alleged that the Highways Officer had ignored the report from the PRoW Officer that the northern frontage of Kates Cottage formed part of the highway. This affected the conditions related to turning circles.

·       The PRoW map showed the impact of the application.

·       Policy CS16 applied in this instance.

·       The Council’s Drainage Engineer had raised objections on the application. The planned soakaway contravened a mandatory building regulation H2 Drainage - Fields and Mounds paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 27-30.

·       The plan that accompanied the application was misleading, as it did not show the extent of hedging and landscaping, or the topography.

·       The proposed driveway to the north of the property would obliterate the amenity land on this side of the dwelling and represented severe over-development of the site, with only around a quarter of the plot retained for amenity use.

·       Developments of this sort were unsympathetic to the conservation area and were not considered climate friendly.

·       There was little point in the Parish Council trying to deliver rewilding projects when developments approved by West Berkshire Council often did the opposite.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.      Members asked questions of the Parish Council representatives and were given the following responses:

·       To the north of the property, there was a kink in the road, which meant vehicles could not pass. Vehicles travelling towards Inkpen had to pull into the area in front of Kates Cottage. Drivers sped up if they could not see a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, and there were often altercations. Large vehicles such as refuse lorries or buses could cause problems.

·       There were no concerns about the volume of traffic that would use the new access. The Parish Council’s concern was that vehicles would not be able to turn and would have to reverse out onto a blind bend.

Applicant and Agent Representation

7.      Ms Malden (Applicant) and Mr Wolage (Agent) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The applicants had been undertaking sympathetic renovations to the property to ensure the continued presence of this period property, while bringing it up to modern standards.

·       The last stage of the renovations included applying to open up the existing access for use, as well as a garage and workshop for personal use. This would also improve the site for future residents.

·       The reason for moving the driveway was to make access to the house easier and on the same level. The applicants had elderly relatives with mobility issues, who currently found it difficult to visit. The applicants also had a small child and manoeuvring prams and car seats was difficult with the existing site layout. Moving the driveway would provide more immediate access to the property without the need to access the stairs.

·       There had been no objections from consultees with respect to the proposed access.

·       Accidents mentioned by the Parish Council were all related to speed. The existing access served two properties and none of the accidents were related to traffic using this access. If the speed limit was obeyed, there would not have been any accidents.

·       The initial plans for the workshop included an office above, but there were concerns about the height of the structure and the impact this might have on the area. The applicants had listened to these concerns and had amended the plans to remove this second storey. There had been no objections to the amended plans.

·       The only reason for refusal was the drainage and the potential risk of flooding. It was argued that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on flooding since the permeability of the site would not change and the area did not flood at the moment. However, the applicant was happy to provide the requested information as a condition of planning approval. A percolation test was carried out on land to the north of the property when the sewage treatment plant was put in, and it was found to be suitable for this purpose. The applicants had been advised that surveys could be expensive, and it was considered reckless to conduct the surveys unless they were a condition for approval.

·       All previous concerns had been addressed and were now considered acceptable by the Planning Officer and relevant consultees. The only reason for refusal was insufficient information about drainage. The Council’s Drainage Engineer had insisted that the information be provided pre-determination, rather than as a condition, which was considered to be the normal approach.

·       The Council’s Drainage Engineer had been helpful in advising about the methodology for surveys and had indicated that he only took an interest in minor applications where they may have a serious impact and significant flood risk issues, or if the proposal was unlikely to work. It was argued that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on flood risk and the applicants were happy to provide the information at a later date to show that the scheme worked. They did not want to spend significant sums without the certainty of having the approval. It was hoped that the Committee would be minded to approve the application with the drainage condition.

Member Questions to the Applicant and Agent

8.      Members asked questions of the agent representative and were given the following responses:

·       The northern access was originally a pedestrian access. It was opened up to remove the oil tank and to replace the old septic tank with a modern sewage treatment plant. It was considered that cars would be able to enter and exit the site in a forward gear and vehicles would not reverse onto the road.

·       Accesses to the north and south of the property were pre-existing. The north access was pedestrian only, and the south access was a driveway. The sewage treatment plant was located to the north of the property.

·       Provision of drainage information was almost always sought as a condition of approval, to be provided and approved prior to commencement. The applicants did not want to commit the additional expenditure to show that the drainage worked, if the other aspects of the development were not approved. The case officer had recommended refusal due to the lack of drainage information, but the applicants had asked for it to go to Committee to seek approval with a condition imposed. If the condition could not be met, then the permission could not be implemented. Drainage conditions had been attached to other planning permissions on the road, so the applicants did not understand why this was a pre-condition in this case.

·       The applicants confirmed that they had only been told a week prior to the meeting that the drainage issue was the sole reason for refusal.

Ward Member Representation

9.      Councillor Vickers in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Members of the Committee had attended the site visit to see the issues first-hand.

·       The access on the north side was already a pedestrian access, and there was already a hardcore surface, so there was already an issue with the permeability of the surface, but this could be corrected if necessary.

·       There had been no injury related accidents in the vicinity of the site, and none of the accidents had been caused by vehicles entering or leaving the pull-in, which was not highway land.

·       There was just one access serving three properties.

·       It was reasonable for the applicants not to have submitted all of the requested information at this stage. They had wanted to know that all of the other issues had been resolved before going to the expense of commissioning an expensive, detailed drainage report.

·       The steps that led down from the top of the site to the southern access were difficult for a family with a young child to negotiate.

·       It had been suggested that because of the lack of amenity space, the property was not suitable for a young family, but it was important to be able to get in and out of the house from a safe place off the highway.

·       The applicants were doing the area a favour by restoring the house and bringing it back into use, while reducing its carbon footprint.

·       Previous concerns with the application had all been addressed.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10.   Members asked questions of the Ward Member and were given the following responses:

·       Although the owners would have been aware of the limitation of the property when they bought it, they were entitled to try and make the changes that suited their personal circumstances. Although there may have been other ways to address the issues, this was the application in front of the Committee for consideration.

Member Questions to Officers

11.   Members asked questions of the Officers and were given the following responses:

·       Officers were happy with all aspects of the application other than the drainage.

·       It was confirmed that vehicles would be able to reverse onto the public right of way and enter the road in a forward gear.

·       There was no policy for amenity space in relation to house extensions, but for a new dwelling of this size, the minimum amenity space would be 75m². There would be at least 200m² of usable amenity space at the property if the development was to go ahead.

·       The reason for requesting drainage data in advance of determination was to be able to assess whether the development would lead to a risk of flooding. The Drainage Engineer had to base his assessment on his own research, which showed that the site might be underlain by clay, which would preclude the use of the proposed infiltration devices. If there had been another option for discharge of run-off from the site, then he would not have been concerned, but there was no alternative and so it may not be possible to get rid of surface water from the site. Therefore, there may have been an increased flood risk for the highway that would contravene CS16 and the NPPF.

·       Officers would seek to impose conditions where it was possible to do so, but the Drainage Engineer had confirmed that it was not possible in this case. In the past, there had been applications consented with conditions, where it had transpired later that the condition could not be discharged so the permission could not be implemented. A condition had to be reasonable – this was a test of the NPPF. If it could not be implemented, then it would be considered unreasonable, and the Council would have no grounds to defend it at appeal. Each site was treated on its individual merits and there were particular site-specific constraints in this case, which could affect drainage. Officers considered that they did not have enough information to be satisfied that a condition requiring further drainage information would be appropriate and a SuDS scheme would be workable.

·       The site was previously laid to grass, but this had changed as part of recent building works. Officers stressed that they needed to base their recommendations on evidence, and if the applicants refused to provide the evidence, then officers would be unable to make a recommendation for approval.

·       The case officer had written to the applicant on 13 October 2023 to ask if they would submit additional information in relation to drainage matters. The case officer had made it clear that if additional information was not submitted, then the officers’ recommendation would be for refusal and the matter would be considered at Committee. The applicant acknowledged the correspondence on the same day.

·       The width of the site was around 9m and a vehicle turning facility could be provided within the site so vehicles would not have to reverse onto the public right of way. However, Highways could not insist upon this. They could only insist that provision be made for vehicles to drive onto the highway in a forward gear if the road was classified. The public right of way was not a classified highway.

·       It was suggested that the correspondence between the case officer and the applicant should be put on the Planning Portal.

Action: Planning Officers to upload the correspondence onto the Planning Portal.

·       Officers advised that the information provided was insufficient to confirm that the proposed drainage strategy would be workable and so it may not be possible to comply with a condition that required further information to be provided or compliance with that drainage strategy. Such a condition would not meet the tests set out in the NPPF.

Debate

12.   Councillor Vickers opened the debate. Prior to the meeting, he had been minded to approve the application subject to a drainage condition, but he felt that the applicant could be misled if the Committee overturned the officers’ recommendation and such a condition could be unreasonable. He indicated that additional conditions may need to be considered if the application was approved. If the Committee refused the application on drainage grounds, then he felt it important to reassure the applicants that the other aspects of the application were considered acceptable. He commented that no water had been observed running off the site onto the highway at the site visit.

13.   Councillor Patrick Clark asked if the application could be deferred. It was confirmed that this was an option.

14.   Councillor Heather Codling indicated that it was disappointing when applicants did not take the professional advice of officers. She proposed to accept the officers’ recommendation and refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker.

15.   Councillor Phil Barnett highlighted that the applicants would need to submit a fresh application if the current application was rejected.

16.   Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that a recent planning application had been approved with a drainage condition, even though a proper drainage assessment had been requested but not provided. She expressed concern over the lack of a consistent approach. She indicated that she had voted against approval of that application and she indicated that she was inclined to do the same for this one.

17.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Heather Codling, seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker, to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report and update report.