Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

CASE OFFICER: Connie Davis

Having declared a prejudicial interest in this item Councillor Cornish left the room for this item and did not participate in the debate or vote. This item was chaired by the Vice Chair Councillor Mickleburgh

Proposal: Outline application for the proposed erection of 56 residential dwellings with associated access, following demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings. Access only to be considered (with Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be reserved)

Applicant: Mr Nathan Craker

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 149 to 234.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·         Update to the recommendation- time limit on Section 106 agreement.

·         Clarity on the ownership Victoria Gardens.

·         Information regarding local Badger population.

Connie Davis, case officer provided clarity over a request for an additional condition from the British Horse Society but as the request to reinstate the historic bridleway was still under consideration by WBC, and therefore the condition was not required to make the application acceptable.

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He mentioned that more notice had been taken regarding Finchampstead’s Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) compared to other recent applications, especially policy ES1 which related to carbon neutral housing. He told the committee that originally the application had been for both 31 and 33 Barkham Ride which the NDP accepted, with 70 houses, but this had now been split into two sites which had 56 and 26 houses, taking the total to 82, over the 70 that was considered acceptable in the NDP. He asked whether the sites could be considered together.

Hugh Reid, resident, spoke in objection to the application. He highlighted traffic as a key concern for the residents, explaining that peak time traffic in the mornings was already high with 1060 peak two-way flows measured in the morning, 28% higher the than the WBC report. He also mentioned speeding, disregard for the 6ft6 limit and the safety issues near Bohunt School as key issues. He told Members that there were a large number of T-Junctions in the area, which caused frequent accidents. He said that these were concerns because of the lack of opportunity for alternative transport options. He was of the view that this development would be the start of turning the western end of the settlement on Barkham Ride into a higher housing density area. The proposed 56 dwellings on 29 hectares, the next most dense area on Barkham Ride contained only 42 dwellings, this was a 33% increase.

Nathan Craker, applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He referenced a good partnership between the applicants and the officers. He cited figure 1 on page 159 of the agenda which he said showed the site in its context, surrounded on three sides by existing development. He mentioned good transport links, specifically the number 3 Leopard bus that ran nearby. He told the committee that the development was sustainably located and adhered to the growth strategy and NDP. He mentioned some key benefits which were 40% affordable housing being provided and the tenure mix including 70% social rented housing, improvement to sustainable transport and Biodiversity net gain.

Councillor Charles Margetts, ward member, spoke in objection to the application. He said that the site was outside the settlement boundary and explained that the combined site of 31 and 33 Barkham Ride was in the draft Local Plan update as 66 houses.  He commented that if all proposed developments went ahead, then there would be 112 houses built in the area. He told the committee that he had asked officers to bring both sites together to committee but that this had been ignored and that the sites were brought separately to exploit planning. He pointed out that the application was contrary to policies CP9 and CP11. He added that there was no access to Barkham on foot, inadequate bus services and the bus did not go near the closest railway station. He also referenced the width of the road and the fact that buses and vans passed less than a metre away when walking on the pavement. The NHS Primary Care network had advised that local GPs were overcapacity with no plans for expansion. Councillor Margetts told Members that the application did not comply with policies CP6 or CP3. He referenced many future plans within the area for development and how there would be a large cumulative effect. Councillor Margetts referenced local wildlife and drew Members’ attention to a video of a badger travelling along the site boundary.

All members of the committee attended a site visit except Councillors Cornish and Soane.

Councillor Mickleburgh explained that this was an outline application which would fix the number of dwellings at a maximum of 56. He indicated that he wanted to exercise the right to bring the application back to Planning Committee at the reserved matters stage, were it to be accepted at the outline stage. He said that although the application was contrary to policy CP11, because of the Council’s lack of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS), the harms must significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits for the application to be refused. He pointed out the positives of 22 affordable homes on the site.

Councillor Firmager sought comment on the traffic levels along Barkham Ride and possible increases as a result of the application. Alan Lewis explained that the Highways team had looked into this at length.  He added that daily levels had a significant range and there were roughly 8000 traffic flows per day, 4% of which were HGVs. 63 per week were the larger HGVs which may be connected with adjacent commercial uses which have a legitimate right of access to properties within the 6’6” restriction. He explained that due to the scale of current flows, the estimated increase in traffic from development would only be 2% which would largely be light traffic and that this was considered sufficiently low. He added points regarding limitations of land and highway drainage, that the new solar farm development would improve land drainage and therefore reduce pressure on highway drainage, and that an extension of the speed limit would ease lots of areas of concern.

Councillor Firmager asked whether the 22 affordable houses could possibly be reduced by the applicant, referencing previous applications where he had been disappointed to see this occur. The case officer explained that accepting this application would fix the maximum number of overall dwellings to 56.  However, the overall number of dwellings could be reduced at reserved matters stage, which due to the number of affordable houses being a percentage, would in turn decrease the number of affordable homes, However, in order for the applicant to deviate away from the 40% affordable housing required, a viability assessment would have to be provided.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey mentioned that the committee had to consider this application on tilted balance due to the lack of a 5YHLS and asked the case officer to explain titled balance for the benefit of the public.  She also reiterated that the committee must look at this application on its own merit. The case officer explained that if other applications do come in then this application, if approved, would be a material consideration but not the other way around as it would be speculative to do so. She then explained the concept of titled balance.

Councillor Skuse asked at what point the speed limit change would come into effect. Alan Lewis indicated that although there was no need to relocate the speed limit, it was being looked at and that it potentially would be moved to the edge of the 31 Barkham Ride site.

Councillor Smith focused on the cumulative effect of the application, he explained that the Local Plan allowed for 70 houses across the 2 sites and that there would now potentially be 108 because the original number had not envisaged the mobile homes. The case officer explained that the 66 net increase in the revised growth strategy was above and beyond the mobile homes on Victoria Gardens. Councillor Smith then questioned officers on the lack of an updated 5YHLS number and stated that the last number given was from April 2022. He also mentioned that from the site visit, the traffic flows were very high and the predicted 2.4 cars per dwelling coming in and out of one entrance would cause issues. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead - Development Management, clarified there had been an updated 5YHLS position which was the Council’s position as of 31 March 2023, this position was 3.2 years, down from the previous figure of 3.95 years which was referenced in paragraph 3.15 of the report. Alan Lewis provided clarity on the traffic movements, explaining that there would be approximately 28 peak movements in and out of the site which could potentially lead to a 1.8% increase in traffic.

Councillor Neal referenced paragraph 10.3.3 on page 181 of the agenda.  He mentioned that the My Journey quiet cycle link from Finchampstead to Wokingham Town Centre at Blagrove Drive had been blocked off by the landowner so was no longer accessible. He also mentioned paragraph 10.2.9, which referred to the historic bridleway and asked if there was any chance of this being reinstated. The case officer confirmed that the application relating to this was still pending.

Councillor Munro questioned the differences between the housing densities in the report and the ones presented by the resident in their presentation. The case officer explained that it was difficult to know where the discrepancies stemmed from without knowing the methods behind their calculations, but referred to the agenda which showed the density at 31 Barkham Ride as 17.6 dwellings per hectare and 33 Barkham Ride as 19.3 dwellings per hectare.

Councillor Smith questioned why the 5YHLS number was going down when the committee had approved sites in the past. Councillor Mickleburgh suggested that the conversation regarding the 5YHLS was continued outside of the meeting.

Councillor Mickleburgh said that the main reason cited by Councillor Margetts for listing this application was due to the fact the location was unsustainable.  He was of the view that from the site visit and the evidence in the report, that this was not the case. He added that pages 196-198 of the agenda were of concern which referenced the relationship between this site and others on Barkham Ride. He mentioned that a Project Board had been proposed to discuss the possibility of multiple applications in the area. He asked officers whether it was permissible to add a condition relating to a project board to manage the large number of developments on Barkham Ride. Brian Conlon told Members that the activities of the Council wider than planning covered many different statutory roles and explained that the Executive had priorities and could discuss cumulative impact of developments. He added that the cumulative impact could be considered if it was material, but each application must be considered on its own merit. He said that even though officers could not request applicants to resolve a problem that was unrelated to them, if the cumulative effect was going to lead to an issue, then they could pool mitigation.  This could be done through a section 106 agreement. He informed Members that activities the Council undertook at a higher level to coordinate with developers would require an overarching role of Local Government and would not be in the remit or control of, nor meet the test of an individual planning permission.

Councillor Smith questioned how a Neighbourhood Plan was insufficient to protect the local area from development. The case officer indicated that this was referenced in paragraph 3.24 of the agenda where it discussed what happened if tilted balance was combined with a Neighbourhood Plan.  She referred to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and explained that point B from paragraph 14 of the NPPF was not complied with because the Finchampstead NDP did not feature any housing allocation sites. The application would have been assessed differently if that was not the case.

It was proposed by Councillor Neal and seconded by Councillor Skuse that this application be approved. Due to an equal number of votes for and against the proposal, Councillor Mickleburgh was given casting vote as Chair of the Committee and the application was approved.

RESOLVED: That application 223528 be approved subject to conditions and informatives set out in pages 202 to 218, and the following obligations

1. Roads - Details of road status – either to remain as private or to be adopted by the Council

2. Affordable Housing - 40% on site affordable housing

3. My Journey/ Travel Plan - Contribution of £30,240 (£540 per dwelling) towards My Journey or Travel Plan to be provided

4. Bus Services - Contribution of £ 72,688 (£1298 per dwelling) (indexed linked) to contribute towards the Arborfield bus strategy

5. SANG/ SAMM – Contribution to be calculated following Reserved Matters as it is dependent on number of bed spaces per dwelling.

6. Employment and Skills Plan - Employment and Skills Plan or in lieu contribution to be provided – this is determined by floorspace and so will be calculated at Reserved Matters

7. Establishment of Management Company – to be responsible for open spaces, play equipment, drainage, roads (the latter if not adopted by the Council)

8. Public Open Space - Financial contribution towards public open space types (outdoor sports provision / allotments) if there is a shortfall on-site at Reserved Matters. If an off-site contribution is to be provided, £38,445.00 would be required for allotments and a contribution of £131,432 (£2,347 per dwelling) indexed linked to 2015 towards Outdoor Sports Provision.

9. Biodiversity Net Gain - 10% Biodiversity Net Gain plan to be submitted with details of on-site provision or off-site off-setting

At this point in the meeting Councillor Cornish returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair.