Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 6no. dwellings, with associated landscaping and access.

Applicant: Mr R Mellett.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 89 to 120.

The Committee were advised that the Supplementary Planning Agenda included amendments to conditions 2, 15, and 16.

Pierre Dowsett, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Pierre stated that this application represented a resubmission of an application currently at appeal, whilst the material considerations surrounding the weight of planning considerations no longer had the same weight of determination. Pierre stated that the development was located within a sustainable location, whilst 2 units would be provided as on-site affordable housing, with electric vehicle charging points supplied at each unit. Pierre praised officers for their quick action in considering the new planning balance, and Pierre asked that the Committee support the officer recommendation of approval.

Jim Frewin, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Jim stated that he had been asked by Shinfield Parish Council to call-in this application, who were unhappy with the planning approach taken by the Council. Jim felt that this was the fourth application for this site, and was an example of how developers repeatedly submitted application with the knowledge that WBC would eventually approve it. Jim stated that Parish Councillors were questioning the point of a neighbourhood plan if the policies therein were ignored by WBC. Jim added that the planning application did not comply with the parking standards policy 5 of the neighbourhood plan, nor did it meet the drainage policy 8 or the tree retention policy 6. Jim stated that the site was actually within the countryside, and there were significant concerns with regards to construction traffic and access. Jim stated that there was not a lot of open green space in Shinfield, and Shinfield had already delivered a number of houses towards WBC’s housing stock. Jim asked that officers work to ensure that applications complied with locally adopted neighbourhood plans, and added that Shinfield Parish Council requested that officers to find ways for the application to comply with the polices within the neighbourhood plan.

David Cornish sought clarification from officers with regards to some of the concerns raised by Jim Frewin. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that that the Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan was considered within the standard policy hierarchy, whereby local policy such as this plan would be the starting point for considerations. Part of the NPPF had been engaged as the Borough could no longer demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which meant that the local planning authority now had to consider whether this application would have such adverse impacts which would outweigh any benefits. The officer’s detailed assessment of the proposal concluded that the less than desirable impacts of this development were not considered to significantly outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Brian added that the Local Plan remained valid and was used as a starting point for planning considerations.

David Cornish queried that whether as the Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan was a more recent document than the Local Plan, would this counteract the Local Plan. Brian Conlon stated that the neighbourhood plan was a material consideration, and national policy took precedent where local policy, for example aspects of the local plan, were out of date.

Stephen Conway stated that whilst this application conflicted with aspects of Wokingham Borough Council’s planning policy, planning applications were having to be assessed with a tilted balance which required the adverse impacts of planning applications to considerably outweigh the proposed should an application be refused. Stephen added that this was because WBC could no longer demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Stephen added that the NPPF was also clear that there was an assumption in favour of development within the countryside where the development was demonstrated to be sustainable.

Wayne Smith queried whether this site was located within the SDL. Adrianna Gonzalez, case officer, confirmed that the site was located within the SDL.

Wayne Smith stated that Shinfield was the first area of the Borough to adopt a neighbourhood plan, and the Planning Inspector had gone against the wishes of Shinfield residents on two planning applications. Wayne added that homes were being delivered too quickly within the Borough which now meant that we could no longer demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Wayne stated that he had raised the issue of over delivery with local Members of Parliament.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that he had sympathy for the situation faced by Shinfield residents, and noted that this application did not meet three policies within the Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan. Andrew noted that the context of consideration of this planning application had now changed due to the absence of a five-year housing land supply. Andrew stated that this application could not only be refused if the negatives were unequivocally proven to outweigh the benefits. Andrew stated that some improvements to the scheme had been made compared to refused application in 2017, for example tree protection. Andrew queried whether all or some of the site was considered as previously developed land. Adriana Gonzalez confirmed that the specific area in question had never been considered as previously developed land.

David Cornish was of the opinion that the applicant could have done more with this application to try and win over the local community.

It was noted that the Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan was referenced within paragraph 7 of the officer report, and within the list of documents used to assess the application.

Al Neal queried whether Shinfield Parish Council owned the land required for access, and queried whether they could in theory block access. Adriana Gonzalez stated that Shinfield Parish Council had not mentioned the specific area of land, and highways officers had raised no objections to the application.

Wayne Smith queried how the properties were proposed to be heated. Brian Conlon stated that any new dwelling would require the most up to date standards in terms of energy efficiency which were separate to local requirements. Brian added that if developments met the national standards of a ten-percent reduction in carbon emissions, then officers could not justify a condition requiring additional measures.

RESOLVED That application number 222304 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 106 to 112, and amendments to conditions 2, 15, and 16 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.