Agenda item

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 24/02022/FUL in respect of the erection of a single detached three bedroom house (125 Strongrove Hill) and associated works.

2.       Mr 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission, for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the Highways Authority was content with the proposal and had no objection on Highways grounds. The access as it joined the A4 was being resurfaced for a minimum of 6 meters from the edge of the carriageway. The site layout was acceptable with regards to parking levels, turning, and cycle storage. The full representation of Mr Goddard’s observations can be found here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole and Mr Gordon Montgomery, Town Council representatives, Ms Kamini Conning, supporter, Mr Brian Withers, agent and Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers, Ward Members, addressed the Committee on this application. It was agreed by the Committee that joint Ward Member, Councillor Tony Vickers, would read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Dennis Benneyworth.

Town Council Representation

5.       Mr James Cole and Mr Montgomery addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

Member Questions to the Town Council

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

·       The new application would be a benefit to the community and should be supported. It had always been felt that the ground was a good site for a house. The piece of land was not an example of high-quality woodland. Redevelopment of the site made sense.

Supporter Representation

7.       Ms Kamini Conning addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

Member Questions to the Supporter

8.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

9.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution part 3 point 10.8, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(3).

Agent Representation

10.   Mr Brian Withers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

Member Questions to the Agent

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

·       The application was for a passive house, which conformed with the format set by the Passive House Trust which was an independent industry leading organisation which promoted the adoption of passive houses in the UK. There were only 1000 passive homes in the UK. There were no passive homes in Berkshire and Wiltshire.

·       Regarding evidence setting out how the proposal would meet the passive house standards, the companies and suppliers that would be involved with the build were passive house certified. The house proposed would be highly sustainable and it was felt that this circumvented the issues identified by the Planning Officer.

·       In relation to why Planning Officers did not accept that the application represented exceptional design quality, it was highlighted that Planning Officers had suggested the use of an independent company, which would cost £7000 per day, which would not be recoverable. The house would be highly sustainable, which it was felt would circumvent the issues highlighted by Planning Officers.

Ward Member Representation

12.   Councillor Tony Vickers addressed the Committee and also read out a statement on behalf of fellow Ward Member, Councillor Dennis Benneyworth. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

Member Questions to the Ward Member

13.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

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

·       Officers were of the view that the recommendation was not finely balanced. It was harmful to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the design was of poor quality. A previous Inspector agreed with the assessment in terms of the spatial strategies and the clusters and the requirements of policy. The tilted balance did not apply because of the identified harm to the National Landscape. It was a strong Officer recommendation for refusal of the application.

·       Officers stated that little weight had been given to the opinion that the development would meet passive house status, as it was not demonstrated in any of the documentation submitted that this would be achieved. Officers clarified that passive house designs were not considered exceptional, and an application for a passive house had been approved by West Berkshire Council in West Woodhay 2022606/FUL. Documentation for this approved application was shown to the Committee and demonstrated the type of information required for a development to be considered a Passive House.

·       In response to whether a condition could be added setting out that work could not commence until evidence was submitted on how the application would meet passive house standards and whether this would change the planning balance, Officers stated that this would be an unreasonable condition to apply because if it materialised that the proposal could not be built in accordance with the approved plans and also achieve passive house design then the suggested condition would cause conflict, and it would become unreasonable.

·       The design needed to be considered in terms of the conditions listed and a further condition regarding passive status could conflict with one of these conditions, if it was not certain this could be achieved.

·       Officers stated that a condition must pass certain tests, including whether it was reasonable; whether it could be complied with and if it adhered to the other conditions. Officers used BREAAM as an example and stated that even though the detailed design stage was completed post permission, earlier there was a preassessment stage to check compliance. This provided Officers with confidence regarding whether a proposal was capable of complying with certain standards based on the design submitted. Officers had given little weight to passive house status as they had not received enough evidence to say whether a condition could be imposed to secure the proposal based on the design.

·       Officers stated that in terms of the exceptional design, passive house although laudable, had been around for some time and was no longer considered of an exceptional design.

·       Officers suggested that Members could delegate to Officers to seek sufficient evidence that the proposal could be designed to Passive House standards. If Officers were satisfied this could be achieved, planning permission could be approved.

·       Regarding the definition of open countryside, Officers stated that the Spatial Strategies, the Local Area Delivery Plan and planning policy five directed development to settlement boundaries. There were exceptions to this listed in Policy C1, which stated that development be in clusters of 10. The site was considered open countryside.

·       Officers stated that planning inspectors applied Policy C1 in the same way that it had been applied in the application. There were two decisions that defended why the site was considered inappropriate.

·       Officers stated that exceptional design was a very high bar and Officers did not consider the application to clear the bar of exceptional design. It was not considered by Officers that the application complied with CS14 or CS19.

·       Officers stated that if the application had been to peer review and approved by architects as an exceptional design, this would have formed a material consideration and factored into the recommendation. However, no peer review had taken place. In the Officer’s opinion, the application failed on multiple fronts including the Spatial Strategy; CS14 in terms of the quality of design; CS19 in terms of the impact on the national landscape and issues regarding sustainable drainage.

·       Officers did not consider any of the information raised to be significant enough to change their recommendation for refusal.

Debate

16.   Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by stating that the site was not in a remote location, and he did not consider that the site was in a sensitive area. Councillor Vickers stated that there were strong arguments in favour of it being in a sustainable location. The tilted balance was significant in the application. It was a brownfield site, and there was no effective use of the land for agricultural or forestry purposes. The site was used for fly tipping and local residents supported the development for a house on the site. Regarding the matter of exceptional design, the applicant was a small/medium builder for whom there were limits on opportunities to develop, and significant weight should be put on that. The application was in a relatively sustainable location, it was not remote or sensitive, and it could be argued that it would enhance the brownfield site and put it to effective use.

17.   Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj agreed with the presentation made by the Town Council representatives. The site was currently a waste piece of land which was not being used. Councillor Amirtharaj supported the development and noted that achieving exceptional design standards would have prohibitive costs for the applicant.

18.   Councillor Paul Dick noted the position of the local Councillors however, considered the Officers recommendation to be clear. Councillor Dick did not consider the design to be exceptional and considered it to be a blot on the landscape. Councillor Dick stated that members could not discount the professional view of the Officers who had stated that the bar for exceptional design was very high. Councillor Dick noted that there were means of demonstrating compliance with exceptional design, but the applicant had decided not to. Councillor Dick stated that the site was next to a marsh and the application was lacking in ecological information. Councillor Dick supported Officers recommendation to reject the application.

19.   Councillor Paul Dick proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker.

20.   Councillor Clive Hooker noted the strong recommendation of refusal from Officers and understood the subjective nature of design. Councillor Hooker stated the applicant had chosen not to take the application to a peer review panel for assessment and he acknowledged the fees associated with this however, this was something that was required if approval was sought. Exceptional design had not been achieved, and the site was outside of the steeling boundary. The site was within the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and it was against the Council’s Spatial Strategy. Three applications for the site had been to the Inspector and refused previously. Councillor Hooker stressed that Members made decisions based on policies and the recommendations of professional Planning Officers. Councillor Hooker supported Officers recommendation to reject the application.

21.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Paul Dick, seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.