Agenda item

(Councillor Adrian Abbs joined the meeting at 7.30pm).

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/02643/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for up to 9 no. dwellings and all associated works. Matters to be considered: Access, Landscaping and Layout.

2.     Mr Jake Brown, Principal Planning Officer, 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, provided that a Section 106 Agreement has been completed within three months (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), and that authority should be delegated to the Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the report (or minor and inconsequential amendments to those conditions authorised by the development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman or vice-Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee).

3.     Or, if a Section 106 Agreement is not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the report.

4.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard advised that the increase in vehicle movements created by this application, during the am and pm peak periods, was low.

5.     The five vehicle access points were all of sufficient width and sight lines were in accordance with Manual for Streets, subject to the removal/trimming of some hedges. The 23 car parking spaces proposed were in accordance with Council policy. The 117 parking spaces used by the hotel would be retained.

6.     Pedestrians would be able to use the footway on the opposite side of the site.

7.     Highway Officers had no objections to the application.

8.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ian Blair, objector, Mr Simon Millett, agent, and Councillor Billy Drummond, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

9.     Mr Blair addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·         Mr Blair believed that homes were first developed in the area in the late 1990s with 16 homes in Priory Place and dwellings on Deadman’s Lane. 27 homes followed in 2004.

·         Mr Blair could not recall any particular improvement works on Deadman's Lane.

Agent Representation

11.  Mr Millett addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November 2024

Member Questions to the Agent

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

·         The trees that would be planted/other planting would be varied, with exact details to be confirmed in line with the proposed condition. The applicant would be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping for a minimum of three years post the dwellings being occupied. This was a condition of approval.

·         The two affordable housing units were proposed to be located together for reasons relating to land ownership.

·         The applicant had engaged in the formal pre-application process with the Council. However, it was regrettably the case that no specific consultation had taken place with neighbouring residents. Mr Millett apologised that this had not happened.

·         The production of a Construction Method Statement was a condition of approval and the Council’s Highway Officers would be consulted on the Plan. Mr Millett understood that the construction compound would be located on the Premier Inn side of the site and that would also be the access for construction traffic.

·         Mr Millett held the expectation that tree protection and any replacement of trees would be a condition of approval. The applicant would be willing to adhere to the reasonable time period that would be set by the Council.

Ward Member Representation

13.  Councillor Drummond addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

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

·         The pupil numbers at the recently developed Highwood Copse School continued to increase. Many families walked to school currently, but it was felt that many would resort to use of their cars with this further proposed development and its construction.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·         Sight lines were designed to accommodate vehicles travelling at 30mph and sight lines would be achieved for the different access points once existing vegetation had been removed or reduced. The land was in the ownership of the applicant or was public highway. In terms of the ongoing maintenance of the vegetation, this was largely in the control of the Council who could take enforcement action if this was not maintained to ensure sight lines stayed in place. A concern in this area would be difficult to defend as a reason for refusal.

·         It was the case that the footway on Deadman’s Lane was not continuous. However, a number of footway links were in place and routes existed for pedestrians from Deadman’s Lane towards Tesco and Pinchington Lane. The footway linking the east of the site with the A339 was continuous with the exception of one small section. Mr Goddard felt this was sufficient, but the potential to make improvements could be explored.

·         Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy required sites for 5 to 9 dwellings to provide 20% affordable housing.

·         Highwood Copse School was becoming busier. However, the vehicle movements expected for this development would be very low (with an additional 4 to 5 vehicles leaving the site in peak times). Highway Officers did not consider this to be a reason for refusal and could only object if concerns were severe. Mr Goddard explained how the number of vehicles was calculated.

·         It was acknowledged that vehicles departing from plot 9 would need to reverse onto Deadman’s Lane and near to a footpath. While this was not ideal, it did not amount to a reason for refusal. Vehicles could reverse in the opposite direction and the angle of plot 9’s driveway could potentially be adjusted to encourage that. It was however noted that Members needed to determine the application on the plans before them.

·         Mr Goddard felt it could be possible to use Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding to make the footpath to the A339 continuous. This could be taken forward with Greenham Parish Council.

·         The installation of double yellow lines on Deadman’s Lane could not be secured via the planning application. This would be a matter for the Parish Council to progress with Highway Officers and would involve consultation with local residents.

·         Mr Goddard considered the street lighting in the location to be adequate. He also did not feel that a vehicle refuge would be necessary on the Lane as the road was already of standard width and congestion was considered unlikely considered the small growth in traffic movements.

·         Mr Brown explained that responsibility for the maintenance of the open space and landscaping would be secured via the condition.

·         Ms Debra Inston, Development Control Team Manager, advised that it would not be appropriate to add an informative relating to a change to the angle of the driveway of plot 9 as informatives were advisory only whereas this would be an alteration. She reiterated that Members needed to determine the application on the plans before them.

·         A matrix was used to assess biodiversity net gain. This had not been completed adequately with the previous application and a reason for that item being rejected previously was on the grounds of lack of biodiversity net gain. However, it was completed in full for the appeal stage and the Ecologist considered the figures to be accurate and this was accepted at the appeal by the Planning Inspector.

·         The biodiversity net gain applied to the entire application site including the hotel.

Debate

16.  Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate by stating his view that the reasons for refusal of the previous application had been addressed. He therefore questioned what defendable reasons could be put forward for refusal.

17.  Councillor Tony Vickers felt there were points on which Members could consider refusal. For example, the number of dwellings could be reduced, the ongoing increase to pedestrian traffic that had grown since the consultation and the appeal could be a consideration, and the point that refuse vehicles would entirely block the single track road.

18.  Councillor Clive Hooker also felt it was difficult to identify sound reasons for refusal, while noting it would be a considerable development for local residents. He accepted the point about refuse vehicles but did not consider this to be a sound reason. His own concerns in relation to highways had been alleviated by officers.

19.  Councillor Phil Barnett made some points as Ward Member. He acknowledged the concerns raised by the local community. Considerable changes were taking place in the area which included a growing number of pupils at Highwood Copse School. Approval of this application would add to that. However, he also acknowledged the points already raised of the difficulty in finding sounds reasons for refusal.

20.  Councillor Hooker added that the increase in pedestrians on Deadman’s Lane was only an assumption at this stage and queried if officers held any statistics on which to support this. Mr Goddard explained that no statistics were held on this point. He pointed out that the appeal decision was only a month old.

21.  Councillor Denise Gaines considered that nine additional dwellings was relatively minimal. She hoped it would be possible to use CIL funding to enable a continuous footway to be in place to benefit pedestrians, in particular children walking to and from school.

22.  Councillor Howard Woollaston did not consider the points made about the refuse vehicles to be a particular concern. He considered the short duration of inconvenience to be minimal only.

23.  Councillor Paul Dick highlighted positive aspects of the application, i.e. housing within the town that included affordable homes. He was content with the expectation that the continuous footway would be put in place.

24.  Councillor Woollaston proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report. This was seconded by Councillor Hooker.

25.  Potential additional conditions were suggested by Councillor Abbs to ensure access for construction vehicles was via the Premier Inn, and to ensure tree protection. These were accepted by the Proposer and Seconder.

26.  Councillor Antony Amirtharaj remained concerned at the impact on existing residents. He particularly raised the point about the impact that would be caused by refuse vehicles and large delivery vehicles. Councillor Vickers retained the view that the impact caused by the refuse vehicles was a reason on which to refuse planning permission. Councillor Abbs felt that a practical solution might prove possible on this point via the enabling of short term access for refuse vehicles onto private drives.

27.  Officers commented on the additional conditions that had been put forward. It was agreed that the Construction Method Statement would specify that construction vehicles would access the site via the Premier Inn. A landscaping condition was already proposed for new trees/planting within the first five years post completion of the development. Officers agreed that tree preservation orders (TPOs) could be placed upon existing trees during the construction period.

28.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Hooker, 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 listed in the main report and the additional conditions agreed by Members in relation to access for construction traffic and TPOs for existing trees during the construction period.