Agenda item

Proposal:	Hybrid Planning Application:   1) Full planning permission for a food store with a floor area of 1800 square metres (Use Class E(a)) together with drainage, parking and associated access, infrastructure, and landscaping.   2) Outline planning permission (matters to be considered: access) for up to 75 residential units (Use Class C3) high-capacity Electric Vehicle (EV) charging area, and residential care accommodation, containing up to 70 beds (Use Class C2), together with open space, play space, drainage, parking and associated access, infrastructure, landscape, bund on the eastern boundary with the A339, ancillary and site preparation works.
Location:	Land East of Newbury College, Monks Lane, Newbury
Applicant:	NCII Ltd
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Development Manager toGRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the schedule of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking as outlined in the heads of terms (Section 8 of the report).   Or, if the Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking is not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION.

 

18. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/02754/OUTMAJ for a hybrid planning application seeking full planning permission for a food store with a floor area of 1800 square metres (Use Class E(a)) together with drainage, parking and associated access, infrastructure, and landscaping; and outline planning permission (matters to be considered: access) for up to 75 residential units (Use Class C3) high-capacity Electric Vehicle (EV) charging area, and residential care accommodation, containing up to 70 beds (Use Class C2), together with open space, play space, drainage, parking and associated access, infrastructure, landscape, bund on the eastern boundary with the A339, ancillary and site preparation works. Land East of Newbury College, Monks Lane, Newbury.

19.Masie Masiiwa 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the scheduled of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking as outlined in the heads of terms (Section 8 of the report).

20.Or, if the Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking was not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION.

21.The Chairman asked Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application and Paul Goddard made the following observations:

22.The majority of traffic from the development would be via Monks Lane, which had been accepted by the Highways Team. Highways Officers had reservations and would have preferred traffic to exit via the south. Referring to Page 37, Paul Goddard noted the access road through Newbury College was a private road.

23.With the access road being private, it would be difficult to enter a Section 38 adoption process within part of the residential development. Condition nine in the report ensured that the highway would be designed and constructed to an adoptable standard should it become possible in the future and would enable access by the Council’s Waste Service and Contractors.

24.There were no concerns regarding the layout of the proposed car parking for the retail store and it compared to similar stores approved across the district.

25.Not all traffic generation for the store would be new to the network. Some traffic would be pass by trips from the A339 that might stop by breaking up a journey, or linked trips that would already be visiting e.g. the college and would not be counted as they were already on the road network and accounted for.

26.Paul Goddard noted that at the bottom of page 37 there was a projected traffic generation for the various uses and totals overall. The projected traffic generation for this planning application and its impacts had not been easy to assess. 

27.The applicants Highway Consultants had worked closely with Paul Goddard on the Planning Application. An issue regarding the assessment of this Planning Application stemmed from its location in proximity to the Strategic Housing site of Sandleford Park, which included an extensive package of mitigation measures, and the assessment took into consideration whether they would still work if this Planning Application was accepted.

28.The mitigation measures for Sandleford Park were not included in this application, but some objections had been made about them. For Information, Paul Goddard informed the Committee about the relevance the mitigation measures had regarding the proposal, and when they would likely be constructed.

29.Paul Goddard noted the mitigation measures planned for the A339 / B4640, to encourage traffic from the South to go towards the A34, a reconfigured roundabout, a reduced northbound lane for a distance to a single lane, and the potential for a reduction in speed limit to 40 Mph. The mitigation measure for Sandleford Park should be in place by late 2027.

30.Paul Goddard noted the mitigation measure planned for the A339 / A343 Roundabout. The mitigation measure should be in place by 2028.

31.Paul Goddard stated that the mitigation measures for the A339 / B4640 and the A339 / A343 were Section 278 works provided by the developer.

32.Paul Goddard noted the mitigation measure planned for A339 / Pinchington Lane / Monks Lane, with substantial traffic signal junctions with all purpose pedestrian crossings. The mitigation measure should be in place by 2034.

33.Paul Goddard stated that the gap in delivery time of the packages of mitigation measures would ensure that the additional highway capacity would benefit Sandleford Park.

34.The Highways Officers and the Developers of this proposal used the same traffic model which covered all of Newbury in planning the Sandleford mitigation measures which informed them of the suitability of the mitigation measures when including this proposal on top of the Sandleford development.

35.Paul Goddard noted the table on Page 38, which showed the four peak columns for the PM peak without the developments, with Sandleford and its mitigation measures, with Sandleford and this proposal, and this development with reprogrammed traffic signals.

36.Paul Goddard stated that with the mitigation measures planned for Sandleford and adjustments to traffic signals, there would not be a negative impact on the road network.

37.Paul Goddard noted that the design would be refined going forward, with an updated Vis model. 

38.Highways Officers recommended approval, with no objections.

39.Paul Goddard stated that the traffic conditions would worsen until the mitigation measures were completed.

40.In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Billy Drummond, Parish Council representative, Iain Wolloff, supporter, Sean Bates and James Iles, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

41.Councillor Billy Drummond in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Greenham Parish Council supported the development of 75 residential units with open play spaces, and the Aldi store and parking facilities.

·         Greenham Parish Council were concerned with the noise from delivery vehicles during the night.

·         They supported the 70 bed care home with a 20 bed hospice.

·         Strongly advocated for the approval of the application

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

42.Councillor Drummond responded to questions as follows:

·         Greenham Parish Council had not considered adopting the public open space.

Supporter Representation

43.Iain Wolloff (Newbury College Principal) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Newbury College supported the application for the following reasons: it made good use of surplus land that the College owned before selling to the developer, development brought great benefits to the community, it secured educational benefits for the area, it would enable the College to invest in the area and raise needed funds from the land sale, the College’s plan over a long period had received support from government, politicians, local community groups, and employees in the area.

Member Questions to the Supporter

44. Members asked a number of questions, and Mr Wolloff responded as follows:

·         The land had been sold to NCII, but the college had a vested interest in the success of the proposal.

·         It would be necessary for 3.5 years to meet the high cost of ending the PFI.

·         Land sale would enable delivery of education of skills.

·         This was vital for the immediate position of the college, and for further development.

·         The College Corporation owned the service road leading into and across the site. Building of the Highwood Copse Primary School had led to the service road being opened for a period.

·         College Corporation would consider adoption of the roads by West Berkshire Council, with no objection in principle.

·         Did not want a rat run occurring on the service road.  

Applicant/Agent Representation

45.Sean Bates and James Iles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The retail sequential test looked at more than brownfield sites (paragraph 622).

·         Paragraph 630, the Thatcham catchment, had been deemed beyond the reasonable retail catchment area – the assessment focussed, by agreement with officers, on the Newbury area.

·         The assessments of the London Road Industrial Estate were, by agreement, focused on the retail frontage.

·         Members could delegate the agreement of the final wording of conditions to Officers.

·         Specific conditions had been amended in relation to the opening hours of the store.

·         Wide consultation of 4500 households and social media outreach had been undertaken.

·         Zero carbon had been offered, with a strong drainage solution.

·         Biodiversity Net Gain had been offered.

·         Would be open to the adoption of roads.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

46.Members asked a number of questions and Sean Bates and James Iles responded as follows:

·         Would be open to discussions with Sandleford developers regarding phasing of the development.

·         The delegation of agreement of final wording to Officers would improve timing and implementation.

·         The hospice would be built by a separate developer.

·         The majority of the site would be within settlement.

·         The retail store would be built first with housing built afterwards, due to capacity phasing challenges with drainage in the District.

Ward Member Representation

47.Councillor Marsh in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The area did not need another superstore considering the number of nearby stores.

·         Residents were concerned with the impact the development would have on traffic on Monks Lane and surrounding roads.

·         Could not find evidence for demand for an Aldi on the site.

·         Questioned why electric vehicle charging had not been part of the application.

·         More houses on the site instead of the retail store would be more beneficial to the community.

·         The site would not meet the requirements for onsite biodiversity net gain and would have to purchase off site credits.

·         The southern part of the site could be turned into a wildlife nature reserve.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

48.Members asked a number of questions and Councillor Marsh responded as follows:

·         The housing proportion of the site had been good.

·         It had been a model housing development but would prefer additional housing on the site.

·         An additional retail store could threaten nearby stores, and the shopping centre due to be built on the Sandleford site.

Member Questions to Officers

49.Members asked a number of questions and Officers responded as follows:

50.Thames Valley Police considered the proposal secure based on design. The main concern with anti-social behaviour had been with the food store car park. Landscaping within the carpark would break it up, along with a barrier for access and bollards. A retractable bollard plan onsite with CCTV overlooking the car park would be installed. Thames Valley Police could be contacted regarding reserve matters on the layout and natural surveillance.

51.Paragraph 6.64, proposal on public open space, indicated multifunctional public space with locally equipped play area. It would be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement. Condition 30 recommended a public open space condition which requested, prior to foundation level, details of on-site public open space including leap equipment details, covering footpaths and finer details of public open space. The size of the open space had been acceptable in principle, even though it had been less than the requirement for the number of dwellings because of the size and what had been proposed. Officers considered that it met the policy requirement.

52.Point 6.75 Maintaining the Roads. Without a Section 38 Agreement in place, developers would appoint a management company to maintain the roads on behalf of residents.

53.Point 6.77 Number of Electric Vehicle Chargers. The four electric vehicle chargers would accommodate four cars. There would be periods where the car park would be busier than 50% capacity.

54.Highways Officers were satisfied that there were adequate pedestrian facilities within the Newbury College site to enable students to cross safely.

55.Paul Goddard to look through Transport Assessment to find maximum traffic movements in a day.

56. Following consultation with environmental health officer, opening hours would be 10:00 – 18:00 on a Sunday. Delivery times, following consultation with Environmental Health Officer, would follow.

57.Page 46 legal agreement and long-term government and maintenance of the public open space including the leap, landscaping buffers, green infrastructure and drainage measures. Final legal agreement allowed, within the negotiation of the heads of terms, for the Council to have an option on these points. The link through to the A339 would be part of the Sandleford development, and one of the first phases of the development parcel north, which was likely be in place by 2028.

58.The residential site would be considered further at reserved matters, particularly in the layout and landscaping with any mitigation in terms of noise impacts. Addressed in the conditions recommended regarding noise impact. As the planning application had been in part an outline planning application, certain details had been unknown, as they had been purely indicative in terms of drawings. Planning permission ran with the land not with the applicant. The hospice and care home could be picked up by alternative providers. Any application for planning permission had to be considered in accordance with the policies of the development plan at the time.

59.The application for outline planning permission had been indicated for development of a care home and hospice, the ultimate form of that application being brought forward at reserved matters determining the layout of the site, which would determine whether a hospice would be included. The maximum beds for both would be 70 beds.

60. Officers made an assessment which involved consideration of the requirements of policy ADPP1 which required that development outside settlement to be focused on addressing identified needs and supporting the rural economy if applicable. A needs assessment by the applicant demonstrated the need for a care home, which had been supported by the Council’s internal assessment based on housing need for provision of a care home. Policy ADPP1 referred to development adjacent to settlement boundaries.

61.Officers had spent a significant amount of time with the applicant looking at various aspects of the application. Officers had recommendations relating to the phasing of work and phasing requirements were contained within the conditions. There would always be a risk with planning applications that an applicant would not fulfil an entire planning application unless there were sound material grounds for doing so. The Council would not be able to insist on an entire application being built out and would not reasonably be able to condition an entire application being built. In this instance it would not be feasible to condition that the housing would be built before the retail element

62.There would not be a significant impact on students or residents to the south by delivery vehicles to the retail store.

63.There would be delivery vehicles making deliveries during the day. The specifics would be available in the Transport Assessment.

64.As the planning application was an outline planning application, issues regarding Heat Pumps would be more appropriate to be raised in reserved matters. There was a recommendation in terms of Net Zero for the residential aspects of the development. While the Committee could require a developer to provide Net Zero, it could not be overly prescriptive in the methodologies the developer used to deliver on the Net Zero requirement.

Debate

65.Councillor Vickers opened the debate by stating that the application had been put forward by a local developer and stated that he would be confident that they would be able to deliver the scheme on time. Councillor Vickers was reassured that there were options to alleviate the short-term traffic congestion that would occur between the period that the supermarket would be open and the period that some mitigation to the highway network would be achieved. Councillor Vickers noted that the supermarket would be unlikely to affect the Community Centre to be built in Sandleford. Councillor Vickers stated that the scheme should be supported, with concerns alleviated.

66.Councillor Amirtharaj stated concern that the public open spaces and roads would not be adopted by West Berkshire Council. Councillor Amirtharaj stated that public open spaces and roads should be adopted by West Berkshire Council.

67.Councillor Amirtharaj was concerned by the size of the car park as set out in the planning application. He questioned whether a car park of that size would be necessary, and whether a smaller car park would be more appropriate with more housing allocated. Councillor Amirtharaj stated that he would support the application if half of the car park would be allocated to housing.

68.Councillor Amirtharaj supported the inclusion of net zero but noted that without specific conditions being implemented in the planning permission, they would be unlikely to materialise.

69.Councillor Amirtharaj highlighted the use of a heat pump for the retail site, but not for the residential site, and questioned whether a condition could be added to necessitate use of a heat pump.

70.Councillor Amirtharaj commented that broadband should be fibre broadband. He also stated that there had been no mention of control by residents regarding the development company or choosing the broadband company. Councillor Amirtharaj highlighted that he was talking on behalf of residents who had previously faced issues on other sites. Councillor Amirtharaj was concerned that acceptance of the application would leave residents at the mercy of private landlords, and that the roads would not be adopted.

71.Councillor Hooker stated that he had been negative about the application, however, had considered it more positively after reports from Officers. Councillor Hooker noted that there would be the opportunity to put conditions on the application regarding the food store. He noted that the traffic mitigation would be expensive to deliver. Councillor Hooker supported the residential element and was supportive of the application. 

72.A point of order raised by Councillor Benneyworth stated that the conditions highlighted by Councillor Amirtharaj regarding heat pumps would be discussed as part of a separate application that would be looked at by the Western Area Planning Committee.

73.Councillor Barnett stated that he had reservations at certain stages regarding the application. He stated that his main concern had been regarding the traffic movements. Councillor Barnett highlighted the mixed housing that would be built with the acceptance of the application, and the extra care beds that would be provided. Councillor Barnett stated that he had initially been concerned with the retail store, considering the nearby retail park, however with the location of the retail store more residents would be able to travel to the store without the need of a car.

74. Councillor Barnett supported the application and stated that the application would be a good opportunity to support a local facility. He supported the use of a local building company.

75.Councillor Benneyworth stated that reports from Officers had met most of the concerns he had with the application. Councillor Benneyworth supported the proposed care home and the 40% affordable housing units, and on balance, supported the application.

76.Councillor Woollaston stated that most mixed-use schemes relied on one part subsidising the other. The 40% affordable homes were desperately needed, the nursing home was desperately needed, Aldi would not take on the store unless there would be a commercial reason to. Councillor Woollaston supported the application.

77.Councillor Codling stated that supermarkets knew their own markets. The level of detail in the negotiation that has occurred with officers was to be commended.

78.Councillor Vickers raised a point of order, that once Councillor Codling proposed to accept the Officers recommendation and grant planning permission, a seconder should have been sought and then a vote should have been held.

79.Sharon Armour sought clarification on the opening hours. They were clarified as 10:00 – 18:00 on a Sunday. 0800 – 2200 Monday – Saturday and on Bank Holidays.

80.Simon Till stated that neither the proposer nor the seconder suggested changes to conditions. In respect to the recommended conditions, and the hours of opening, the condition concerned had been received from the Environmental Health Officer as a recommendation and the applicant had not had the opportunity to comment upon it. Simon Till suggested Members could consider amending the resolution to delegate back to Officers to discuss opening hours with the applicant.

81.Councillor Woollaston put forward the condition that the road should be adopted by West Berkshire Council, and the public open space, but also suggested putting forward that it would be the Committee’s preference, so that it would be dealt with under reserved matters.

82.Councillor Amirtharaj supported the conditions suggested by Councillor Woollaston.

83.Councillor Hooker raised a point of order, with a proposal having a proposer and a seconder, that the conditions should be confirmed.

84.Sharon Armour agreed and stated that Paul Goddard should set out the conditions on the application regarding Section 38. Sharon Armour stated that the position of West Berkshire Council was that there would be no policy basis to enforce adoption as stated in the agenda.

85.Paul Goddard supported Councillor Amirtharaj’s desire for roads to be adopted by West Berkshire Council and stated that a local design guide was nearing publication. While the document had not been ready for publication, in the future it would encourage developers to enter into a Section 38 Agreement to have roads adopted for access roads serving more than five houses. Paul Goddard deferred to advice from Planning and Legal Officers, stating that Highway adoptions were separate laws to the Town and Country Planning Act. Section 38 fell under the Highways Act 1980. Paul Goddard stated that there would be policies in place going forward to ensure roads would be adopted.

86.Councillor Codling 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 Woollaston

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

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the schedule of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking as outlined in the heads of terms.

Heads of terms for the legal agreement remained as proposed in the agenda pack which included Councillor Amirtharaj’s option for the Council to enter discussions to take on open space management. The conditions remained as per the agenda pack and the updates sheet, which included the delegation to officers to negotiate opening hours. Simon Till stated that an informative regarding the applicant entering discussions with the Council regarding the adoption of the College access road and the roads on the site would also be added to the application.

Or, if the Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to refuse planning permission.