Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/00736/OUTMAJ Midgham in respect of outline application for the erection of 16 dwellings, including 6 affordable units, with access from Bath Road. Matters to be considered: access land at junction with Bath Road, New Road Hill, Midgham, Reading.

2.      Mr Matthew Shepherd 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 conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Douglas Bond, agent, and Councillor Chris Read, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

4.      Mr Bond addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·      The outline application aimed to establish the principle of development and access, allowing for detailed design to be considered later through reserve matters. The approach was conventional, and would help to reduce costs at the early stages of the design process.

·      The indicative plan highlighted how the 16 dwellings could be accommodated, taking into account site characteristics and constraints.

·      The new Local Plan would amend the settlement boundary to include the site within it.

·      The client intended to secure the outline permission and then dispose of the site, potentially to a local housebuilder who would submit reserve matters.

Ward Member Representation

6.      Councillor Read addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

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

·       The Local Plan Review had not been confirmed at Council.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Officers stated that there was a refuge island, which would remain as an uncontrolled crossing point.

·       Recent speed survey data from the A4 indicated an average speed of 30.8 mph and a average maximum speed of 36.1 mph, which showed a reduction from the 2019 data, which recorded an average speed of 41 mph.

·       Officers stated that it was the Council’s intention to adopt the road, and through the detailed design, it would be to adoptable standards.

·       Officers confirmed that there was a typographical error in the heads of terms for the S106 Agreement and that the affordable homes would consist of five two-bed homes and one three-bed home.

·       Officers clarified that the Committee was considering the principle of development and access, with detailed design to be addressed later through reserved matters. The outline application allowed for testing the site’s capacity to accommodate the proposed number of houses while considering fundamental issues such as flooding and contaminated land.

·       It was explained that the Council had just published an updated five-year supply position, which reflected the figures used in the report.

·       Details were provided of the flooding and drainage matters that were needed at the outline and detailed planning application stages.

·       It was confirmed that the surface water drainage would connect to the chamber at the New Road Hill junction. The foul water connection would be to a manhole on the A4, around 20m to the east. Although there had previously been tanker operations in the area, Thames Water had confirmed that there was capacity in their network, so Officers were not able to formally object to the proposal.

·       It was explained that affordable housing would be secured through a legal agreement rather than through conditions.

Debate

9.      Councillor Richard Somner opened the debate by recognising issues that had been raised in previous applications, but he noted that not all of the objections were related to planning. He noted that the highways issues highlighted were manageable not negligible and acknowledged the need to give weight to the emerging Local Plan. He also felt that the proposal was effectively infill development due to the development around it. He indicated that he was mind to support the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

10.   Councillor Vicky Poole noted that the Local Plan had not yet been adopted, and the site of the application was outside the settlement boundary. She highlighted that there was a one percent biodiversity net gain and expressed concern about the need for sewage to be tankered when the area flooded.  She considered that the application had been submitted too soon, as the new Local Plan had not been adopted.

11.   Officers explained why significant weight had been given to the new Local Plan. The previous proposal had been recommended for approval when the Local Plan had been at the Regulation 18 stage and there was some certainty that this site would be included within it. The Local Plan was now at a very advanced stage and there were no unresolved objections in relation to this site. Also, the proposal was considered to be consistent with the NPPF. The NPPF was clear that it was seldom justified to refuse applications on prematurity grounds unless it could be shown that approving the application would undermine the more strategic decisions that were being made by the Local Plan. Officers stated that they could not justify an argument on those grounds and advised that they would not be able to justify this at appeal and sustain it as a reason for refusal. Furthermore, officers noted that the recent increase in the housing requirement automatically engaged the tilted balance and tipped the scales in favour of planning permission unless there was a compelling reason in the NPPF to not apply this.

12.   Councillor Clive Taylor noted that he was concerned that the site was outside of the settlement boundary and noted that the Local Plan was close to being decided. He questioned whether the application could be deferred until after the Local Plan was approved.

13. Officers noted that since the tilted balance came into effect, applications must be progressed as quickly as possible if they were acceptable. Officers stated that deferral was an option that could be considered but advised members that the application was capable of approval.

14.   Councillor Ross Mackinnon praised the clarity of the report and noted the strong recommendation from Officers for approval and that if the application was refused it would likely be allowed on appeal. He indicated that he was minded to support the application.

15.   Councillor Paul Kander noted that this was only an outline application. He also noted that the increase in housing, if completed sympathetically, could increase the local economy and use of the train station. He did not consider any of the issues raised to be significant enough to delay the decision.

16.   Councillor Poole put forward that should the application be approved, a condition be added that properties would be designed in sympathy with the Village Vision, so they would be more likely to be accepted by the village. She indicated that she did not support approval of the application.

17.   Officers confirmed that when reserved matters were considered, all policies must be taken into account. Village Design Statements would be material considerations that the application would be assessed against. While there were no policies to allow conditions to be imposed requiring engagement of the local community on the design, officers were happy to work with the applicant and encourage them to do so.

18.   Councillor Justin Pemberton questioned why a full application could not have been presented to the committee and expressed concern about a future application that may seek to amend the conditions. He also expressed concern regarding the SuDS, and the fact that Thames Water had no issues with connecting into the foul sewers. However, he highlighted the 5 year housing supply, and considered it a compelling argument, and noted that the application would likely be approved on appeal.

19.   Councillor Mackinnon noted concerns about ‘planning by stealth’ through future applications to vary planning conditions, but noted that those matters would need to be robustly considered at that time.

20.   Councillor Somner 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 Mackinnon.

21.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner, seconded by Councillor Mackinnon 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 in the main report and update report.