Agenda item

Proposal:	Section 73 - Application for Removal or Variation of a Condition following Grant of Planning Permission17/02092/OUTMAJ - Hybrid planning application comprising an outline planning application for up to 93 dwellings and associated works - all matters reserved; a change of use of land from agricultural to public open space; a changes of use of land to provide extension to existing allotments; and a full planning application for the erection of 11 new dwellings, new access and associated works on previously developed land.
Location:	Covered Reservoir, Bath Road, Speen, Newbury
Applicant:	David Wilson Homes (Southern)
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Development Manager to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions

 

1.     Members agreed to consider Agenda Items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) together, to be covered by a single presentation and a single set of questions and debate.

2.     The Committee considered reports for Agenda Items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) concerning the following Planning Applications:

·         23/00397/OUTMAJ – Bath Road, Speen, Newbury in respect of Section 73 - Application for Removal or Variation of a Condition following Grant of Planning Permission17/02092/OUTMAJ - Hybrid planning application comprising an outline planning application for up to 93 dwellings and associated works - all matters reserved; a change of use of land from agricultural to public open space; a changes of use of land to provide extension to existing allotments; and a full planning application for the erection of 11 new dwellings, new access and associated works on previously developed land.

·         22/01235/RESMAJ – Bath Road, Speen, Newbury in respect of application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 17/02092/OUTMAJ - Hybrid planning application comprising an outline planning application for up to 93 dwellings and associated works - all matters reserved; a change of use of land from agricultural to public open space; a changes of use of land to provide extension to existing allotments; and a full planning application for the erection of 11 new dwellings, new access and associated works on previously developed land. Reserved matters approval for the erection of 93 homes, with associated open space and other infrastructure. Matters to be considered: access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

·         23/00373/RESMAJ – Land Off Lambourn Road, Speen, Newbury in respect of approval of reserved matters following Outline Permission 17/02093/OUTMAJ (Outline planning application for up to 14 dwellings and associated works - all matters reserved except access.) Matters seeking consent: appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

3.     Mr Masie Masiiwa introduced the combined report to Members, which took account of all relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the reports detailed that the proposals were acceptable in planning terms. For application 23/00397/OUTMAJ, officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports. For applications 22/01235/RESMAJ and 23/00373/RESMAJ, officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant reserved matters approval subject to the conditions in the main reports and update reports.

4.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the applications. He confirmed that access points had been approved as part of the outline permission and the current applications related to the internal arrangements. Officers were content with the proposals set out in all three applications with regards to road design, parking, electric vehicle charging, and cycle storage and recommended approval. Minor points left to consider could be addressed as part of the road adoption process.

5.     Mr Colin Mansell had been due to speak as an objector, but was unable to attend due to illness and Mr John Headland had requested to speak on his behalf. Also, Ms Sian Keeling was unable to present on behalf of the applicant, but Ms Sophie Horsley had requested to speak on her behalf.

RESOLVED to suspend standing orders to allow Mr Headland and Ms Horsley to speak.

6.     Councillor Heather Codling proposed to pool the speaking time for the three applications and allow 15 minutes per party. This was seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston and at the vote the proposal was approved.

RESOLVED to allow each party a total of 15 minutes speaking time.

7.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Alan Booth, parish council representative, Mr John Headland and Mr Nick Lukacs, objectors, and Ms Geogina Mortimer, Ms Estelle Hutchinson and Mr Martin Burchill, applicants, addressed the Committee on the three applications.

Parish Council Representation

8.     Mr Booth in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Speen Parish Council did not object to the principle of the housing site, but objected to the traffic management, particularly having a T-junction from the A4 as the only vehicular access to the majority of the site.

·         This was felt to be a retrograde step to have a single carriageway road used as an access to 93 houses.

·         A small amount of additional expenditure would be required to create an access from the existing roundabout to the west of the site.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

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

·         The Parish Council had raised their concerns in relation to the previous application for outline permission in 2020.

·         Access proposals had been presented as a fait accompli.

·         It was assumed that an access from the roundabout had not been considered for cost reasons.

Objector Representation

10.  Mr Headland and Mr Lukacs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Allotments Association had been running for over 100 years on the Station Road site. It had been leased from the Sutton Estate for returning soldiers from the First World War.

·         The Association was concerned about the loss of parking on Station Road as a result of the proposed double bus stop. This would create significant barriers for elderly allotment holders who travelled to the site by car. As a result, they would lose the many benefits of working their allotments.

·         55-60 allotments were occupied, and it was suggested that membership would dwindle as a result of the loss of parking.

·         The needs of the allotment holders had not been considered as part of the planning applications, and the association had been left out of negotiations. It was hoped that the proposal could be reconsidered.

·         The Sydings was set to be changed forever by this large-scale development, which would affect residents as well as the allotments.

·         Residents of 3-5 The Sydings would be exposed to noise, air and light pollution and the Committee was asked to consider a condition requiring the planting of dense shrubbery, particularly around the large pond.

·         Residents could not see any evidence that the Speen Village Design Statement had been considered, which was important to protect what was unique about Speen Village.

·         Concerns were expressed about run-off from the spring that ran under Mr Lukacs home. Nobody had visited to investigate this issue.

Member Questions to the Objectors

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

·         It was confirmed that Speen residents were the first choice for any vacant allotments. Only in exceptional circumstances would allotments be given to people living outside the area, and only if they had a connection to Speen.

·         Parking pressures were greatest on Sundays when there was football at the recreation ground. Allotment holders often had to use adjacent roads, which impacted the relationship with the allotment’s neighbours. It was suggested that the parking at the recreation ground be expanded.

·         It was acknowledged that some residents of the new development may wish to make use of the allotments.

·         It was explained that each bus stop would be 25m, resulting in the loss of 50m of parking, equivalent to the allotment frontage.

·         Mr Lukacs confirmed that he had not had any dealings with either the Council’s Drainage Officer or the applicant’s drainage engineer.

·         It was confirmed that water from the allotments ran through a pipe under 3 The Sydings. Mr Lukacs was concerned that the adjacent pond would increase water flow under his property.

Applicant/Agent Representation

12.  Ms Mortimer, Ms Hutchinson and Mr Burchill in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

In relation to application 23/00397/OUTMAJ:

·         The site formed part of a larger housing allocation in the Housing Site Allocations DPD.

·         The site had full planning consent for 11 new dwellings with access approved from Bath Road – the principle of development and means of access were not being considered as part of this application.

·         This application sought to vary the approved plans and conditions to reflect the applicant’s house types, and to amend the layout accordingly.

·         The proposal was for 11 two-storey dwellings - three two-bed, six three-bed and two four-bed houses. Three of these would be affordable.

·         The affordable homes would be built to national space standards and would be accessible and adaptable dwellings.

·         All dwellings would have private drives and gardens with garages / sheds for bike storage.

·         The site layout considered the relationship with existing dwellings in the adjacent conservation area and sufficient offset and tree planting would ensure privacy.

·         Existing trees/hedges on all boundaries would be retained to screen the houses and contain them within their landscaped buffer.

·         Dwellings would face onto Bath Road with gardens to the rear, maintaining the feeling of enclosure referred to in the Village Design Statement (VDS).

·         The VDS and Conservation Area had informed this application and architectural features and materials found in the surrounding area had been incorporated into the design.

·         The Highways Authority’s previous objections had been overcome. Parking would be provided in line with the Housing Site Allocations DPD, two unallocated parking spaces had been relocated to the private drive area to the front of the site, and each dwelling would have an electrical vehicle (EV) charging point.

·         The Drainage Strategy was considered acceptable by the Drainage Officers. Foul water drainage would connect to the existing network at Bath Road. Thames Water had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity. Surface water drainage was tied to the wider site and would discharge into the existing ditch network on site.

·         Current building regulations required a 31% reduction in carbon emissions from the previous standards. All dwellings would have insulation, enhanced double glazing, waste water recovery, and decentralised mechanical ventilation. Most properties would also require PV panels - a condition to secure this would be welcomed.

·         There were no technical objections to the application. The applicant had worked with the Parish Council to address their concerns. Their only remaining objection related to the access road, which had already been approved and was not being considered as part of this application.

·         Condition 39 required updated ecological surveys. Since the report had been written, the Ecology Officer had agreed an amendment to the condition with respect to dormice surveys. Instead, alternative methods of working would be agreed prior to commencement. The applicant sought Members’ approval to delegate the final wording to the Development Manager.

·         The proposal was consistent with the full planning permission and would provide a high quality development for a community to thrive.

·         The applicant hoped that the Committee would agree with the recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

In relation to application 22/01235/RESMAJ:

·         The site formed part of the same larger housing allocation as the first application.

·         The site benefited from outline planning consent for 93 new dwellings, with access from Bath Road.

·         The principle of development and the site access had already been accepted and were not being considered as part of this application.

·         This was a reserved matters application, which sought approval for layout, appearance, scale, and landscaping.

·         93 dwellings were proposed, comprising maisonettes, flats, bungalows and houses to suit a range of needs. Officers considered the proposed housing mix to be acceptable.

·         38 affordable homes were proposed, which would be built to national space standards, with the majority being accessible and adaptable dwellings.

·         An emergency access was proposed from Station Road. Bollards would ensure that it could only be used by emergency vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. This would provide a direct link to Speen and on to Newbury.

·         Three public rights of way crossed the site - all would be retained and enhanced.

·         The proposed layout was based on perimeter blocks, ensuring well-defined fronts and backs, with active frontages to ensure good natural surveillance.

·         The layout also allowed for adequate back-to-back distances within the site and to neighbouring properties.

·         All dwellings would have good sized gardens and access to public open space.

·         All dwellings would have cycle storage and EV charging.

·         A relatively small palette of materials was proposed to ensure visual consistency. A proposed condition would require the final materials to be approved by the Planning Authority.

·         The VDS had informed the design of the new dwellings, and design features traditional to Speen had been incorporated to provide visual links with the existing housing stock and to add character to the scheme.

·         Boundary treatments had been carefully considered - brick screen walls were proposed for areas facing the public realm, with close-board fencing between dwellings. Some areas would have low hedges or railings along front boundaries.

·         The tallest dwellings would be centrally located, respecting the relationship with the surrounding countryside and Speen Conservation Area. These would be placed on prominent plots, giving additional presence to aid wayfinding.

·         Houses opposite the apartments would be 2.5 storeys. Elsewhere, building heights would be limited to two storeys to recognise the sensitivity of the boundary with the countryside. 1.5 storey buildings would be provided on the high point of the site to avoid prominent skyline development.

·         Key landscape features would be retained, including boundary hedgerows and most of the existing trees. This would ensure the landscaping scheme enjoyed an instant maturity, as well as providing character and softening the built form.

·         The proposal included over 3 ha. of public open space (40% of the total site area). This would be amenity grassland, wildflower meadow and native hedgerow.

·         A large play area was also proposed, which would have excellent natural surveillance. A 20m off-set from adjacent housing was proposed to mitigate noise.

·         Three attenuation basins would be incorporated into the landscaping scheme to add visual interest and increase biodiversity.

·         The proposed development was consistent with the outline planning permission and would provide a high quality development delivering homes and the affordable provision that was needed.

·         The developer hoped that the Committee would agree with the recommendation.

In relation to the application 23/00373/RESMAJ:

·         The site formed part of the same larger housing allocation as the other two planning applications as set out in the Housing Allocations DPD.

·         The site had outline planning consent for 14 new dwellings, with access approved from Lambourn Road. There would be no vehicular access to the wider site.

·         The principle of development and means of access had already been accepted and were not being considered as part of this application.

·         This was a reserved matters application, which sought approval for layout, appearance, scale, and landscaping.

·         14 dwellings were proposed. Officers considered the proposed housing mix to be acceptable.

·         All dwellings would be two-storey in line with the approved plan.

·         Six of the dwellings would be affordable, which would be built to national space standards, and would be accessible and adaptable dwellings.

·         The existing public right of way (PRoW) connecting the Lambourn Road to the larger site would be retained and would be upgraded to a hogging footpath with a landscaped buffer and new tree planting on one side. The spine road would be on the other side of the PRoW.

·         A mixture of house types would be provided along the spine road, providing natural surveillance of the public open space and PRoW.

·         Two private drives would be served off this road – one serving three terraced houses and one detached home. These would face onto Lambourn Road, but they would be set back to create public open space to replicate the visual character and landscape setting of surrounding properties as per the VDS. These properties would overlook the SuDS basin which would be planted to provide an attractive focal point and support wildlife, surrounded by wildflower meadow and ornamental planting.

·         The other private drive to the south of the site would serve three detached properties overlooking public open space, providing surveillance towards the southern site boundary. This would be planted as wildflower meadow with native shrubs, with existing hedgerow retained.

·         Screen walls were proposed where properties adjoined open land or on primary street frontages as per the VDS.

·         All dwellings would have private gardens with access to cycle storage.

·         Dedicated parking would be provided with an EV charge point for each dwelling.

·         Highways Officers had confirmed that they had no objection to the application.

·         The VDS and adjacent conservation area informed the application and the same materials and architectural features referred to in the previous applications would be incorporated into this proposal.

·         Dwellings would be built to current building regulations and the developer would welcome a condition requiring a PV scheme.

·         Three trees adjacent to the PRoW would be removed, plus some self-seeded shrub trees. It was proposed to plant 22 high quality new trees to off-set the loss of the existing trees, including three new, extra-heavy standard trees between the site and 31/32 Lambourn Road to screen the development. The Tree Officer had raised no objection.

·         Landscape buffers were also proposed along the southern, northern and eastern boundaries to be used as public open space.

·         Amenity grass and ornamental planting were proposed to the front of plots laid to lawn.

·         A long-term management plan and maintenance schedule would be secured via a condition.

·         There were no technical objections to this application and the applicant had worked with the Parish Council to address their concerns. Their only remaining issue was in relation to the access road, which had already been approved.

·         The proposed development was consistent with the outline planning permission and would provide a high quality development, delivering affordable homes that were needed.

·         It was hoped that Members would agree with the Officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

·         In relation to concerns about the pond, it was confirmed that this would be lined and separate from the groundwater, so it should not prompt any additional concerns about spring water affecting 3 The Sydings.

Member Questions to the Applicant

13.  Members asked questions of the Applicant’s representatives and were given the following responses:

·         It was confirmed that the applicant was happy to deliver PV panels across all three applications.

·         Properties would not have functional fires. Chimneys were proposed to be consistent with the surrounding area and the Parish Council had requested them.

·         Access arrangements had been agreed as part of the outline planning permission and was not being considered as part of this application. David Wilson Homes (DWH) had not been the applicant for the hybrid planning application, but a full Transport Statement (including a Safety Audit) had been prepared at that time and had been considered acceptable. DWH would not have taken a different approach if they had been the original applicant.

·         Under current legislation, biodiversity net gain was only required for new outline or full applications and not reserve matter applications. However, a number of biodiversity enhancements were proposed across all three applications, secured by condition.

·         The applicant was unable to confirm the Energy Performance Certificate rating for the proposed properties, but highlighted that the latest building regulations required a 31% reduction compared to the previous standards. A ‘fabric first’ approach would reduce maintenance for customers and improve the quality of the build. Additionally, PV panels were being proposed.

·         A LEAP (locally equipped area for play) would be provided, and a condition was proposed in relation to its design. The facility would be relevant to a range of ages.

·         In response to queries about cycle access, it was confirmed that the PRoW over the two sites would be upgraded to a hogging footpath. Access arrangements were previously approved in full, so the applicant was not looking to change these.

·         Reassurance was provided that there would be no overflow from the ponds on the site. These had been designed with 300mm of freeboard, so even with a 1 in 100 year storm, there would be no issues with overspill or surface water entering foul sewers. Surface run-off would have to be equivalent to/better than the current rate. Capacity would be provided within the permeable paving on most driveways. This was not included in the capacity calculations for the site.

·         A Construction Management Plan would be a pre-commencement condition. A draft had already been prepared.

·         Thames Water had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity in their foul water network, but no indication had been provided as to the level of spare capacity.

·         It was confirmed that a management company would maintain the public open spaces/SuDS. This was part of the S106 Agreement that had been secured as part of the outline permission.

·         Surface water run-off would match greenfield rates and would be an improvement over the existing scenario. While groundwater levels were high in places, extensive investigations had highlighted voids within the chalk and no concerns had been highlighted with existing groundwater levels in relation to the proposed surface water design. Attenuation ponds were lined and would be separate from the groundwater system. Calculations had accounted for 40% climate change. Discharge was to a drainage ditch, which was linked to the River Lambourn. The investigation report had been issued two weeks prior to the meeting.

Ward Member Representation

14.  Councillor Antony Amirtharaj in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Committee was asked to prioritise responsible development.

·         The need for housing in Speen was acknowledged, but the amount of development proposed raised questions about over-burdening infrastructure, environmental damage, and the impacts on vital services.

·         The original application was approved in 2020, but a lot had changed since then, and a fresh perspective was needed.

·         The proposed development in its current form raised ‘red flags’ related to traffic congestion, and destruction of biodiversity.

·         The A4 would buckle under the weight of traffic - a report was quoted that indicated a 900% increase in vehicle movements. Residents entering and leaving the site would cause gridlock. Also, visibility to the west was just 43m, with vehicles approaching from a 60mph speed limit. This was a safety hazard, not just an inconvenience. It was also an environmental burden and a blow to the quality of life for residents, including those on Station Road, Lambourn Road and The Sydings.

·         Concern was expressed about the potential impact on drainage infrastructure and the River Lambourn.

·         The development would replace a vital green space and diverse habitat around the A34. The delicate balance of the ecosystem would be affected. Also, the Speen VDS had not been properly taken into account.

·         Infrastructure issues would have cascading impacts. Station Road was used for parking by allotment holders and those playing football at the recreation ground. It was a narrow road, and the introduction of bus stops would make parking more problematic. The scheme would lead to conflict and access issues for residents.

·         There was existing pressure for more allotments. The development would also create pressures on schools and GP services. Children would attend Robert Sandilands and Speenhamland Primary Schools. Although Stockcross Primary School had capacity, children would be unable to cross the A34 roundabouts. Also, Strawberry Hill GP Surgery was already stretched.

·         It was challenged whether the vision that people had for the future of Speen was a community choked by traffic, devoid of green space to the west, and struggling to provide basic services.

·         Positives associated with the development included the provision of affordable housing and additional land being allocated to the allotments.

·         The Committee was encouraged to seek ample on-site parking, with dedicated parking for the allotments within the site.

·         It was highlighted that CIL contributions would be just £18,000, which was not consistent with the size of the development. It was suggested that more should be allocated to the nearby schools and GP surgery to accommodate the additional burden.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

15.  Members asked questions of the Ward Member and received the following responses:

·         The CIL Team had confirmed the figure of £18,000, although it was unclear if this amount was per property, or for the development as a whole. There was a need for additional funding for infrastructure.

Member Questions to Officers

16.  Members asked questions of Officers and received the following responses:

·         The access for the development had been approved under the extant outline permission, which would provide a fall-back position. It was not considered normal practice to renegotiate access under a S73 application where this had been approved under the outline permission. The Committee was not being asked to consider the access to the highway as part of these applications, which related solely to internal arrangements.

·         The S106 agreement had been established with the outline permission and should provide sufficient funds to secure mitigation for all highways works that were required for the access. Revisiting the S106 agreement at this stage would be unusual and the applicant would have reasonable grounds to challenge the Council.

·         Although the access point had been approved, officers were looking to change the layout of the A4. A footway/cycleway out to Stockcross was being progressed, which had had not even been a proposal at the time the outline permission had been granted. Officers were working with the applicant to accommodate the approved access and a continuation of the cycle route to Speen Lane. Instead of the applicant constructing the right-turn lane, it was proposed that they provided funding to allow the Council to carry out works on the highway to include a footway/cycleway on the southern side of the A4. Discussions were ongoing.

·         The applicants had raised the issue of PV panels after the revised plans had been submitted. If Members wished to impose a condition, they could come up with a suitable wording to secure their provision prior to occupation. However, there were no details as to which properties would be affected, the level of benefit provided and the impact on viability for the developer. Without this detail, Officers were hesitant. Members were reminded that reasonableness and enforceability were key tests for conditions. Also, delivery might undermine other aspects of the scheme, such as visual quality or the viability of affordable housing. It was noted that the developer had offered to provide PV panels.

·         It was confirmed that there were no plans to provide additional parking for allotment holders within the site. Also, the allotments were fenced off from the site and access was from Station Road. While it would be physically possible to provide additional parking, it would not be close to the allotment entrance. Parking had been assessed against Policies P1 and HSA2, which gave no grounds to reasonably apply a condition requiring additional parking.  Both the PV panels and parking would require considerable redesign of the scheme. It was suggested that an informative could be added to the outline permission to note that the Planning Committee would welcome an approach by the applicant to provide further details on these matters. These would have to be considered under a separate planning application because they were material changes.

·         The condition relating to provision of the emergency access from Station Road upon completion of the fiftieth dwelling had been approved as part of the outline permission. The threshold was chosen because it related to the planned phasing of the development. There was no legal requirement to provide one, but the Highways Authority always sought one for developments larger than 100 dwellings. It was not possible to have the emergency access from Lambourn Road due to the ransom strip.

·         Condition 47 sought improvements to the existing bus stops to encourage residents from the development to use the buses. While not a legal requirement, the improvements would make the bus stops more usable and support the viability of the bus service. Kassel kerbs would reduce the step up into the bus to improve accessibility. Providing bus stop markings would not reduce car parking, because people should not be parking at a bus stop. Condition 47 would be discharged through a separate planning application, so there was an opportunity to amend the design and Officers offered to work with Members and the community on this.

·         It was confirmed that measures to protect the oil pipeline were set out in Condition 25 attached to the first application. This included a 6m easement.

Debate

17.  Councillor Abbs opened the debate. He had opposed the site access on safety grounds when it had originally been proposed, and he had concerns about the lack of provision for ‘net zero’. While he recognised that the Committee was unable to request changes on these matters, he hoped that the developer would come forward with a proposal for PV panels. He suggested that net zero homes were valued by residents because they were cheaper to run. Despite his concerns, he could not see any reason to refuse planning permission.

18.  Councillor Vickers accepted that the access point could not be changed, but felt that the road layout should be adapted to accommodate the proposed cycle route, since the residents would want to cycle to the town centre. He noted that moving the traffic island further west would move it away from the desired line for pedestrians crossing the A4. He suggested that residents would struggle to turn right out of the site, particularly when the A4 was used as a diversionary route in the event of a closure on the M4 and suggested that the emergency access might be brought into use in such a scenario. He also suggested reserving an alignment for a future road link across the ransom strip to Lambourn Road. He agreed that the applicant’s offer to provide PV panels should be welcomed, since the market was moving in that direction. Overall, he indicated that he was minded to support the application, but suggested that additional conditions may be required.

19.  Councillor Phil Barnett agreed with the points made by Councillor Abbs, but stressed the need to ensure that the development was suitable for use and that any detriment to the local community was minimised.

20.  Councillor Amirtharaj proposed that conditions be amended to:

·         secure the emergency access at an earlier stage;

·         amend the design of the bus stops on Station Road to retain some parking;

·         maintain the green buffer at 1-4 The Sydings.

Also, he suggested that the developer be requested to provide a parking area for the allotments. If the above were not technically possible, he indicated that he would abstain in the vote.

21.  Mr Till suggested that a line be added to Condition 47 to require details submitted to discharge the condition be approved in consultation with the Ward Members and Parish Council. Councillor Vickers requested a further change, inserting the wording ‘for all modes of transport’

22.  In relation to Condition 46, Mr Till suggested that requiring earlier delivery of the emergency access would create a dead-end road that was not usable by residents due to the construction phasing of the development. Councillor Amirtharaj stressed the need for this to be delivered as soon as possible to avoid issues experienced by other developments to the north of Newbury. Councillor Abbs proposed amending the wording to require provision of the emergency access as soon as the roads connecting to it have been constructed. Mr Till suggested that the wording be changed to require that the emergency access be provided either at the point when the turning head adjacent to Plots 28 and 29 had been constructed or at the point at which the 50^th unit was occupied, whichever was the earlier.

23.  Mr Till noted that an additional informative had been requested regarding parking for the allotments, which would apply to 23/00397/OUTMAJ and 22/01235/RESMAJ, and an additional informative for PV panels, which would apply to all three applications.

24.  In relation to 23/00397/OUTMAJ, Councillor Adrian Abbs proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report, with the following amendments:

·         Condition 46 - require that the emergency access be provided either at the point when the turning head adjacent to Plots 28 and 29 had been constructed or at the point at which the 50^th unit was occupied, whichever was the earlier;

·         Condition 47 – require details submitted to discharge the condition be approved in consultation with the Ward Members and Parish Council, and insert the words ‘for all modes of transport’;

·         Additional informatives requesting parking for the allotments and provision of PV panels for all units.

This was seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston.

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

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report and update reports with the following amendments.

Conditions

46

Station Road Emergency Access   At the point when the internal turning head joining the emergency access is completed or upon occupation of the 50th dwelling, whichever is earlier, the Station Road emergency access and cycle route shall be constructed and made available for use in accordance with the approved drawing 07733/SK/009 rev A or as otherwise agreed by the LPA.   Reason: In the interest 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).

47

Off - site Section 278 Highway Works   No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Section 278 Agreement has been signed and provided in consultation with the Ward Member and Speen Parish Council to procure the following works: By occupation of the 50th dwelling: ·         Emergency and cycleway access onto Station Road    Public Transport Infrastructure ·         Provision of raised Kassel kerb, 21 metre time-restricted bus stop clearway marking to enable the bus to safety line and timed clearway sign plate at "The Sydings" bus stop northbound in Station Road ·         Provision of raised Kassel kerb at arrival end and safety line at "The Sydings" bus stop southbound towards A4 in Station Road   Dropped kerbing and tactile paving at the following locations: ·         Across Station Road at the junction with the A4 ·         Across Lambourn Road west of the junction with Station Road with decrease in kern radii on western side of Station Road to enable this crossing ·         Across The Sydings at the junction with Station Road ·         Across Station Road at the southbound bus stop   Reason: To encourage sustainable travel, in the interest of road safety and to ensure adequate and unobstructed provision for pedestrians and/or cyclists. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

Informatives

	Parking for Allotments   The applicant will make every effort to make provision of parking for allotments within the site.
	Solar PV panels   The applicant is encouraged to use their best possible endeavours to explore the options for providing solar PV for the site.