Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 3(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/02538/FUL in respect of the proposed new self-build, net zero carbon dwelling, improvement of 2 no. existing accesses and associated landscaping on the site of the former Cope Hall residence, Skinners Green, Enborne, Newbury.

2.      Ms Debra Inston 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 Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter Wilding, supporter, and Mr Giles Sutton, Mr Steve Woodward and Mr Richard Rowntree, applicant/agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Supporter Representation

4.      Mr Wilding addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 16th July 2024 (youtube.com)

Member Questions to the Supporter

5.      Members asked a question of clarification and were given the following response:

·       Mr Wilding indicated that he lived in one of a number of converted farm buildings at Skinners Green Farm. The site had been derelict, but was now a wonderful place, and the owners had invested in improving their properties, including several extensions. The former Cope Hall site was an eyesore and the current proposal was what residents wanted to see. There had been several letters of support and no objections from Skinners Green residents. He urged the Committee to go against the Officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.      Mr Sutton, Mr Woodward and Mr Rowntree addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 16th July 2024 (youtube.com)

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

7.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The woodland did not have priority habitat status. Officers’ comments were based on the site being shown on Natural England’s map, which was incorrect.

·       Assessment of design was inherently subjective, and decisions were often overturned at appeal. In relation to the character and appearance of the setting, the Planning Inspector who had considered the previous appeal was not a landscape specialist and had not followed the same guidance as the landscape architect for the current application. Instead, he had given his opinion on the matter. However, it was felt that he had misrepresented the topography of the site. Although the landscape architect had conceded that the site was not concealed from every angle, it was mostly disguised, with a restricted view from Skinners Green Farm. Additional planting and woodland management would provide an overall benefit.

·       The proposed surface would be completely permeable and soakaway testing had been carried out. Hardstanding was only required 5m back from the highway. Soil disturbance would be minimal with a no-dig system proposed to protect tree roots. There was also a drainage ditch on the other side of Skinners Green where the package treatment plant could discharge to.

·       The applicant had no objections if the Committee wished to make the Cope Hall Lane access for pedestrians/ cyclists only.

Ward Member Representation

8.      Councillor Tony Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 16th July 2024 (youtube.com)

Member Questions to the Ward Member

9.      Members asked a question of clarification and were given the following response:

·       Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicated that an outstanding design should help raise the standard of design more generally. Councillor Vickers felt that this application passed this test. There were few buildings by commercial developers that came close to achieving net zero carbon standard. It went beyond what policies demanded and it should be cherished.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Some of the claims about the environmental performance of the proposal were not fully substantiated, but if the application was to be approved, conditions could be added to ensure that the net zero standard was achieved. The appeal inspector had felt that the technologies proposed weren’t groundbreaking and were no more than what would normally be expected for new dwellings under current building regulations.

·       There were clear policy reasons to reject the proposal, which were borne out by the appeal decision. If Members were minded to take a different view to the appeal inspector, then the application would need to be referred to District Planning Committee.

·       The appeal inspector had noted the lack of substantive evidence to demonstrate exceptional design quality. If Members approved the application, they may wish to consider having the application assessed by an independent design review panel. This was neither a policy nor statutory requirement, but it was strongly recommended when seeking to justify proposals on the grounds of exceptional design quality. The panel would include individuals with knowledge of the local area.

·       Officers were unsure if either the Council’s previous or current Ecologist had visited the site.

·       If the Committee was minded to go against the Officer’s recommendation when there was a clear appeal decision on the matter, then the decision would be open to third party challenge.

·       In the event that the Committee approved the application and referred the matter up to District Planning Committee, it was recommended to allow time for the applicant to take the scheme to an independent design review panel, since this would be a material consideration.

·       Although removal of vehicular access on Cope Hall Lane would be considered advantageous, Members had to consider the application before them. It was stressed that both accesses complied with all relevant highway standards.

Debate

11.   Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate. He felt that Members did not support the Officer’s recommendation and he thought the design deserved to be given the go ahead. If the design review panel supported the proposal, then officers may change their recommendation, so there may be no need to refer the matter to District Planning Committee. Therefore, he suggested that this Committee should consider what conditions might be required.

12.   Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj appreciated that this site needed special treatment. He felt that the applicant’s design had taken appropriate account of the surroundings. He noted that local residents supported it and suggested that it met the requirements of NPPF paragraph 84. He indicated that he supported the application.

13.   Councillor Paul Dick expressed unease at setting aside the Officer’s recommendation, but he had found the speakers’ presentations compelling. In the absence of serious concerns about the Council being open to challenge, he felt that he should look after the needs of local residents, and indicated that he was supportive of the proposal.

14.   Councillor Howard Woollaston indicated that he had initially been minded to support the Officer’s recommendation, but he had changed his mind on the basis of the speakers’ presentations.

15.   Councillor Vickers suggested that conditions should address archaeology, minimising ground disturbance, ecology, and drainage. He noted that the woodland had been poorly managed and suggested that the pond could contribute to biodiversity net gain. He also reiterated that further evidence would be required in relation to achievement of net zero standards.

16.   Ms Inston recommended delegating the wording of conditions to officers, including pre-commencement conditions for archaeology and ecology, materials, and the environmental credentials of the building. It was agreed that Ward Members would be consulted on the conditions. She confirmed that if Members voted to approve the application, the developer would be allowed to take the proposal to a Design Review Panel prior to taking it to District Planning Committee.

17.   Mr Goddard requested conditions related to sight lines, access, parking, electric vehicle charging points, and cycle storage. It was confirmed that the Committee had to consider the existing plans with the two vehicular accesses.

18.   Councillor Paul Dick proposed to reject the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission, delegating authority to Officers to agree any necessary conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions to be agreed by Officers.