Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/00657/FUL in respect of Erection of single dwelling, double garage and associated works, Land at Tudor Avenue Chieveley Newbury RG20 8RW.

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 Michael Parker and Mr Alan Alewood, objectors, Mr Andy Callow and Mr Robert James, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4.      Mr Parker and Mr Alewood addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

·       Local residents had been provided with very little notice of the of the recommendation to approve the application.

·       They felt as though officers’ recommendation was undemocratic and contravened the Council’s own policies.

·       They had presented photos demonstrating the area’s propensity to flood.

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The site had previously been designated as agricultural land and was denoted as such in the Land Registry.

·       The flooding near the site was mainly surface water, but was also through water that came up through Thames Water’s sewer network when it could not cope with the rainfall.

·       The development site sat on higher ground and could contribute to increased flooding on lower ground, which already flooded. The pumping station would need to be improved to prevent flooding when there  was excess rainwater.

·       The development would add to the burden on the pumping station, which was unable to cope with the current demand.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.      Mr Callow and Mr James addressed the Committee. The representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

7.      The main items highlighted by the applicant were as follows:

·       The development was under Callow Construction, but was owned by the applicant and his wife, with a view to building a family home.

·       The applicant had contacted all neighbours in the near vicinity to allay any concerns prior to and during the application.

·       The application and the Council’s consultants had answered all objections raised by neighbours.

·       The applicant was sympathetic to the concerns raised by the objectors, but concerns raised were not felt to be relevant to the application as shown by the surface and foul water strategies commissioned by the applicant.

·       A lack of maintenance may have contributed to the flooding issues.

·       As owners of the Tudor Avenue access road, which would not be adopted by West Berkshire Council, the applicant would investigate the issues moving forward and would look into a communal laydown area for bin collection.

·       Regarding nutrient neutrality concerns, the applicant had agreed with Officers the amount and the location of the offsite mitigation which would be secured with a Section 106 legal agreement. The area to the northwest of the dwelling would be planted as a wildflower meadow and utilised for any future biodiversity enhancement measures required. 

·       No objections had been raised through the Council’s technical consultation.

·       The development was considered to be in line with Planning Policy C1, as the plot naturally formed a completion on Tudor Avenue, and the plot size and space was similar to the adjacent properties and respected the rural character of the locality.

·       The site area was distinct from the wider agricultural landscape, and would have no adverse impact on the landscape, environment, ecology or highway safety.

·       The application would help diminish the impact of the Council’s five year deliverable housing sites shortage and would contribute to the local community.

·       If the application was approved, it would be implemented without delay subject to planning conditions and would create further opportunities for other viable developments.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       There had been a lack of maintenance of the two gullies along Tudor Avenue, which filled with leaves and needed to be cleaned out regularly. If this was not carried out, the surface water entered the pumping station, which was unable to manage the excess water

·       If the surface water issue was mitigated, then it would alleviate the issues faced by the Thames Water Pumping station.

·       Bin collection was an issue, there was no current designated place for bins. The applicant would be willing to have hardstanding on their site, which had a drain to remove surface water.

·       The applicant took ownership of the site 3 years ago and had submitted a previous application that was refused in 2023.

·       The road was unadopted, and there was no clear responsible party for the drains. The applicant would be willing to come to an agreement with highways, Thames Water, and other residents to put a maintenance plan in place.

·       The applicant was uncertain if the land was agricultural.

Ward Member Representation

9.      Councillor Heather Codling addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Paddocks were generally considered to be agricultural land and could be used for grazing livestock. Officers treated the site as agricultural land.

·       Planning applications were not required if used for grazing livestock related to agriculture. If the use was changed to a paddock for equestrian use, then there may be a requirement.

·       The Council could not stipulate improvements to Thames Water’s network, and Officers stated they were content that the development would not add to any of the outstanding drainage issues.

·       Thames Water had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity in the area for foul water.

·       The proposed soakaway to the northwest of the site, to which all water that ran off from the gutters would be directed into, had been checked using trial pits. This strategy had been accepted by the SuDS officer.

·       In terms of surface water, Officers they were satisfied that it would be moving away from the area of surface water flooding.

·       There were alternative methods and strategies that the SuDS Officer could employ in terms of package treatment plants.

·       It was confirmed that the application involved a change of land use from agricultural to residential.

·       It was confirmed that the application was not in Flood Zones 2 or 3, and there was no surface water flooding on the site itself across the dwelling, therefore the local authority had not asked for a flood risk assessment (FRA). Officers noted that an FRA could show the depth of surface water flooding of the access. The SuDS Officer was content that the flooding would not prevent access and egress in a car.

·       Officers were content to proceed without an FRA and noted that it could have formulated part of the drainage strategy, but it was not essential.

·       The highway boundary was around the outside of the turning head area, and everything further up the road was private.

·       The application was not a house of exceptional design and had not been presented as such. Officers were content that the design was acceptable and met CS14 and would not harm the character of the area through its design.

·       In terms of sustainability principles, nothing had been put forward in relation to this application. It would have to meet building regulations, but there was no requirement in planning policies for a single dwelling to exceed building regulations.

·       The new duty that local authorities have to conserve and enhance the National Landscape had been taken into account. The harm would be limited and localised to a small area, and officers considered that they would be carrying out their duty to recommend approving the application.

Debate

12.   Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj opened the debate. He noted the flooding issues and was surprised that an application outside the settlement boundary was supported by Officers for approval when it would normally be refused. He noted that the development was for a family home and would not harm the National Landscape and the applicant would be willing to work with neighbours to mitigate any issues.

13.   Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that the only reason the development was being brought forward to committee was because the council did not have a five-year housing supply. He stated that the Committee should be policy led. He was not supportive of the application and noted the previous refusals for applications on the site, as well as highlighting the fact that the five-year housing supply would likely be solved in the near future and the development would not enhance the National Landscape.

14.   Councillor Tony Vickers highlighted a similar application in Hungerford but noted the need for the organic growth of small sites in towns and villages. He supported Officer’s recommendation for approval. He considered that the harm to the AONB would be minimal, and that the current use of the land was not of high quality. He indicated that he would be comfortable to vote for the application but noted that it was finely balanced.

15.   Councillor Clive Hooker noted the increase in applications because of the shortage of land supply but indicated that land supply issues would likely come to an end in June. He noted that it was the Committee’s responsibility to make decision based on policy and questioned whether Members were content that the application was tilted in favour of approval, due to the five-year housing supply shortage. 

16.   Councillor Abbs noted that other Councillors referred to the land as scruffy and questioned what the land should look like without being cultivated. He noted that policy C1 was a core policy, which would require a key reason to go against, and considered that a key reason had not been identified to the Committee.

17.   Councillor Denise Gaines noted the challenging nature of the application with the tilted balance and the lack of a five-year housing supply. She noted that the NPPF overrode the Local Plan as it was a national policy, which recommended that the Committee support approval of the application as there was a five-year housing shortage. 

18.   Councillor Abbs agreed that the NPPF overrode all local plans, but noted that it stated a weighted balance, and that it did not recommend approval.

19.   Councillor Gaines noted that section 7.3 of the NPPF stated that there should be a presumption of favour of sustainable development means, and listed reasons why an application could be refused. She considered that none of the listed reasons were valid for this application.

20.   Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj 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 Tony Vickers.

Officers advised that a condition should be included to ensure that the outbuilding remained ancillary to the main property and would not become a separate residential unit. However, a condition could not be added to prohibit further development outside of the application site.

21.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj, seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers 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 update report.