Agenda item

22. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/02784/PIP in respect of Application for Permission in Principle for residential development for a new detached dwelling, Laburnum Cottages, Westbrook, Newbury RG20 8DN.

23.   Ms Lauren Hill 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 report.

24.   In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mark Hayes Newington, Parish/Town Council representative, Mr Michael Webb, objector, and Mr Gareth Johns, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

25.   Mr Hayes Newington addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

26.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

27.   Mr Webb addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The land stopped being used as allotments in the 1960s and had since been used as agricultural land for chickens and other animals.

Agent Representation

29.   Mr Johns addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       The development was put before the committee as an in principal planning application due to costs for the landowner.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       It was explained that traffic concerns were not in scope for an in principal planning application but would be asked for at the technical detail stage application.

·       An in principal planning application was the first step of a two-stage planning permission.

·       Refusal of the principal planning application would not prevent the applicant from submitting another application.

·       Approval of the application would mean the applicant would have three years to have the technical details stage agreed. This could be brought by members to the committee.

·       In principal planning applications could be taken to appeal, and approval would mean that the land would be classified as suitable for development. The approval would only be for one dwelling, and any additions would require another application.

·       An in principal application was similar to an outline application, with all matters reserved. But the validation requirements were a lot less. Applicants only had to submit limited information in terms of a location plan. If the decision was granted, the use of the land would not change until the application was complete.

·       The application was put forward by the applicant to be included within the settlement boundary, and the Parish Council had been consulted on that basis as rounding off the existing settlement, and based on the objection of the Parish Council, the site had not been included in the settlement boundary of the new Local Plan. The Parish Council wanted to keep the rural character of the area as it stood, by not permitting further development within this location.

·       If members approved the application, the technical details stage could not be refused after the new local plan was agreed.

·       The land was graded as agricultural land, but it was not categorised as the highest quality, and the restrictive covenants on the site were a civil matter and would not be a planning matter.

Debate

32.   Councillor Howard Woollaston opened the debate by noting the level of traffic on the road, and questioned whether Highways Officers would have objections.

33.   Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that the boundary review did not include the site. He was not supportive of a decision in principle which allowed the development of a home on the site. He suggested that in the absence of an appeal decision, the Committee was guessing regarding interpretation of the NPPF. He noted that a Section 106 Agreement could not be applied to the application for a decision in principle. He did not consider the site appropriate for a home and indicated that he was minded to go against the Officer’s recommendation.

34.   Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the settlement boundary did not include the site and indicated that he was uneasy about approving an application which went against the Parish Council and West Berkshire Council as the local planning authority. He noted that there was a 20mph speed limit on the road around the site, and that there was ample space for parking off-site. He felt that Officers and Members were confused by how a decision in principle was dealt with and noted that he was not in favour of decisions in principle. Councillor Vickers questioned why nutrient neutrality could not be reviewed later in the process similar to traffic concerns. He indicated that he was not supportive of the application, but noted that an appeal would most likely be upheld. He noted that the visual impact to the national landscape was minimal. Councillor Vickers indicated that he was inclined to vote against Officers recommendations.

35.   Councillor Denise Gaines noted the lack of information regarding the highways issues and highlighted that it would be difficult to approve the application without additional information.

36.   Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj agreed with most of the points raised by the other Councillors and indicated that he would be uncomfortable to approve the decision in principle. Although he was supportive in principle of looking for plots for single detached properties but would be supportive of a decision to refuse the application.

37.   Councillor Clive Hooker indicated that his decision was swayed by the tilted balance because of the land supply. He noted that if the application was approved, it would be unlikely for the applicant to get a full application or outline planning permission in before the Local Plan was resolved.

38.   Councillor Vickers stated that he would not be supportive of building a house on the site.

39.   Officers stated that it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal based on nutrient neutrality, as there had been no objections raised by the Council’s ecologist. The PPG for permission in principle stated that if the development would cause significant harm to a protected habitat such as the SAC then mitigation measures need to be put in place.  Planning inspectors have accepted the only way to secure that at PIP stage was via a unilateral undertaking, and the applicant had accepted that.

40.   Councillor Nigel Foot questioned whether Officers could reinvestigate why the settlement boundary was drawn in its current location which excluded the site under consideration, and whether it could be included in any reasoning for refusal. Councillor Foot noted that the Parish Council as to drawing where the settlement boundary was.

41.   Officers stated that the site was excluded from the settlement boundary in order to prevent the loss of the soft transition of the landscape, but it was possible for Officers to investigate why the settlement boundary was drawn in its current location.

42.   Officers indicated that the committee could delegate to officers to write the refusal, and to articulate the reasons for damage to the NDL.

43.   Councillor Adrain Abbs proposed to reject Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission due to the harm the proposal presented to the North Wessex Downs Landscape and the principle of the development being contrary to the spatial strategies in the local plan. This was seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker.

44.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Adrian Abbs, 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 subject for the following reasons:

·       The harm presented to the North Wessex Downs Landscape

·       The Principle of the development being contrary to the spatial strategies in the local plan.