Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Outline application (all matters reserved except access to the site) for the development of up to 200 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing and associated infrastructure, open space, biodiversity enhancements, landscaping and green infrastructure, following demolition of existing agricultural buildings. (Means of access into the site from New Bath Road to be considered.)

Applicant: Croudace Homes

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 265 to 392.

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

·         Minor correction to paragraph 2.1;

·         Summary of new points raised by an additional letter of objection, and associated officer responses.

Bridget Datcham, Twyford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Bridget stated that whilst the Committee could not fully consider the draft Local Plan Update or Twyford Neighbourhood Plan, the policies within the neighbourhood plan were worthy and did not support this application. Bridget stated that the forty-percent affordable housing would be welcome, however there was no mention of working with a housing association, whilst it was also critical that the first homes policy within the neighbourhood plan was adhered to. Bridget added that Twyford needed expanded facilities to meet the needs of existing and future residents in addition to residents of surrounding areas. There was a serious concern that properties to the south of Twyford would be seriously restricted in terms of gaining a place at the Piggott School as a direct result of this development. Bridget stated that the proposed roundabout would cause congestion at peak times, whilst present traffic may prefer to use an east to west route which conflicted with the Parish Councils plans to regenerate the village centre to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Bridget added that the amendments to the access routes to the south of the proposed development would aid pedestrians and cyclists, however this would not resolve the difficulties they would experience once they existed onto the south of the Wargrave Road where pavements were narrow and the sight lines were difficult. Bridget felt that whilst the proposed crossing on the A4 was an improvement, it was not an adequate solution for the safety of students at peak traffic times. Bridget urged the Committee to take note of comprehensive submissions from residents regarding flooding and mineral deposits on the site. Bridget noted that there was no mention of re-wilding within the plans.

Lilian Pearson Bishop, resident, spoke in objection of the application. Lilian was of the opinion that the development would bring 200 houses, 400 cars and 800 people to the area, and added that the Bridge Farm site was neither safe nor suitable for such a development, and would be detrimental for residents of surrounding villages. Lilian stated that the traffic modelling suggested that the A4/321 roundabout would have spare capacity, and referenced images of the roundabout being heavily congested whilst children were walking alongside the congested road, breathing in emissions. Lilian stated that this development would only worsen the existing congestion, whilst more accidents would be commonplace as drivers would get frustrated and take more risks. Lilian referenced a young boy who had his jaw broken by a vehicle with a large wingmirror on this stretch of road. Lilian stated that there had been over 250 road accidents within a ten-year period between Charvil and Hare Hatch, the majority of which had occurred on the A4. Lilian stated that additional vehicle emissions would cause more respiratory illnesses and asthma, and questioned where additional GPs would be located to deal with these increased cases. Lilian was of the opinion that this development would result in additional emissions, which would be detrimental for existing residents. Lilian added that the proposed drainage strategy relied on water naturally draining through the ground, whilst much of the site had a high water table especially near the Rover Loddon. Lilian asked that the Committee refuse the application.

Chris Roberts, agent, spoke in support of the application. Chris stated that each reason for deferral had been thoroughly addressed, and the applicant had collaborated with the Council in a positive manner. The proposals now included widening of existing and proposed pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure on the A4 in accordance with LTN 1/20, taking into account existing constraints. The pinch point on the bridge was proposed to be addressed, representing an improvement to the current situation which had been endorsed by highways officers as a sensible approach. A range of footpath, signage and speed control improvements were proposed along the southern Wargrave Road pedestrian access into the site, which was also endorsed by highways officers. Chris stated that all new homes would be built to the future homes standard in accordance with the interim position statement adopted by the Council in December, and would represent the most sustainable homes ever built by the developer. Chris added that the S106 contribution of £20,000 could be used at the Council’s discretion for air quality monitoring or anti-idling campaigns. Chris stated that all traffic modelling had been carried out in accordance with the Council’s strategic transport modelling, and had been endorsed by highways officers. Clarification had been provided that the development was unlikely to deprive existing pupils within the Piggott catchment a place at the school. All of these benefits were in addition to benefits previously highlighted in December, including a thirty-percent biodiversity net gain, planting of 350 trees, and forty-percent affordable housing to be managed from an association on the approved list.

Stephen Conway thanked the case officer for a thorough report and for their engagement with the applicant to resolve a number of concerns. Stephen added that most of the remaining concerns related to the cumulative impact of development along the A4 corridor, leading to pressure on schools, GPs and other infrastructure. Many statutory consultees had not objected to this development, and the Committee were constrained by the planning system and the expert testimony provided in support of many aspects of this application. Stephen noted that whilst this site was included within the draft Local Plan Update, this was not adopted and the officer report stated that the site should be regarded as unallocated and judged against the existing policies within the Local Plan. Whilst policies CP9, CP11 and MD CC02 all emphasised the avoidance of development outside of settlement boundaries within the countryside, the tilted balance as a result of a lack of demonstrable five-year housing land supply was now in effect. Stephen referenced NPPF 11D, which titled the balance in favour of development unless the site was a protected site or the harm done would demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Stephen stated that the site was not a protected site, and whilst most of the site sat in flood zone 3A the Environment Agency had not objected to the proposals which meant that this could not be pursued as a reasonable reason for refusal. The application would deliver two key benefits, those being delivery of affordable housing and carbon neutral homes. Stephen felt that whilst these benefits were very welcome, they were not tangible compared to the harm of the development. Stephen stated that this development would preclude future extraction of minerals which was contrary to NPPF 210C, whilst the site also featured within the minerals and waste local plan as a mineral safeguarding area. Stephen stated that NPPF 174B required planning decisions to recognise the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land. Stephen stated that the site included grade 2 and grade 3a land, which were very good and good land. As such, Stephen was of the opinion that the application was contrary to NPPF sections 210C and 174B, which was especially pertinent as the application was now being assessed against the NPPF due to the lack of a five-year housing land supply.

Andrew Mickleburgh thanked the case officer and registered speakers, and noted the responses given to the previous six reasons for deferral. Andrew hoped that other developers would apply the future homes standard, and noted the photographs showing congestion on the A4. Andrew sought details regarding the impact of the loss of agricultural land, and sought details regarding the mineral safeguarding area. Sophie Morris, case officer, stated that the site consisted of 8.7 hectares of best or most versatile agricultural land, and Natural England had not objected to the development on that basis. Sophie stated that the loss of agricultural land was not so significant given the lack of a five-year housing land supply, and recent appeal decisions had highlighted the weight placed on additional housing numbers by Inspectors. With regards to mineral extraction, the applicant had provided details regarding the possibility of prior extraction of minerals, however the site was too small to be economically viable for this sole purpose. Local mineral operators had been approached and they had indicated that they may be interested in taking minerals and processing elsewhere but they would not set up on the site. Policy DM9 in the minerals and waste plan acknowledged the process of extraction of minerals could be harmful, and as such a minimum buffer zone of 100m was required. Taking into account a 100m buffer zone to the nearest residential property, the operational area for extraction would be approximately one hectare which was not commercially viable.

Rebecca Margetts felt that the application should encourage the use of green travel, and questioned the traffic modelling data. Rebecca sought clarification regarding the access to the site. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager - Planning and Delivery, stated that there was access via the roundabout and a secondary access point. The access met the transport tests whilst the modelling was based on the most current datasets. Connor added that whilst there was some congestion in the locality and this development would add a number of vehicles, these vehicles would disperse throughout the site which would minimise the impact. Kamran Akhter, Principal Highways Development Control Officer, stated that the modelling showed that fifty-percent of traffic would go via the roundabout, with 44 AM peak trips as the worst case scenario. The threshold for congestion had not been met, and showed that there would be capacity at the roundabout to accommodate these additional vehicles.

Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey queried how the titled balance impacted this application, and what impacts on air quality had been considered as a result of the proposed development. Sophie Morris stated that any scheme would have some harmful elements, and the tilted balance meant that these harmful elements needed to demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The officer view was that any harm would not outweigh the benefits delivered by the scheme. Sophie added that the scheme would not solve the issue of a lack of five-year housing land supply, but it would contribute towards a solution. The air quality assessment was reviewed by the environment officer who had concluded that the impacts of the proposed development would not result in demonstrably harmful impacts, whilst the £20,000 S106 contribution could be used to assist with air quality monitoring.

John Kaiser queried whether approving this site could impact on other sites who were expecting to be included within the local plan update. Connor Corrigan stated that the tilted balance required local authorities to get back to a position where they could demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and other much less sustainable locations had been granted planning permission by Inspectors on this basis.

David Cornish commented that it was unfortunate that the Twyford Neighbourhood Plan did not oppose this particular site. David stated that any development would only contribute to a small percentage increase in vehicular traffic, however there were a number of new developments using the same road infrastructure including the application for 57 flats approved earlier this evening. David queried where was the trigger point for the cumulative impact on the road network from developments. Connor Corrigan stated that industry standard modelling had been used, and had demonstrated that this development would not impact the road network to the extent where a refusal would be warranted. Kamran Akhter stated that in addition to the traffic modelling, the applicant had undertaken a traffic survey to validate the model. Kamran added that the modelling indicated that the development would not breach the threshold for congestion at the junction, meaning that the junction was under capacity.

Stephen Conway questioned the sustainability of the site as residents of dwellings towards the north of the site were very unlikely to walk or cycle to the railway station, and would instead get a lift which would generate four trips through congested roads from each property. Stephen noted that if the application was refused an appealed, all interested parties would have the opportunity to present evidence for the Inspector to make a judgement on. Stephen noted that NPPF 11D II stated that applications were required to be assessed against the policies within this framework, which included the previously mentioned NPPF 210C and NPPF 174B.

Chris Bowring commented that the Committee were required to demonstrate the harm against the benefits of the proposed development, and was of the opinion that the case officer had covered the points regarding mineral extraction and use of agricultural land.

John Kaiser sought clarity regarding the loss of agricultural land and the use of the site as a safeguarded mineral extraction site. Connor Corrigan stated that the site would only allow for a very small area of mineral extraction, which could possibly incur an objection from Network Rail, and would necessitate the need for large HGVs to facilitate extraction. 8.7 hectares of best or most versatile agricultural land was available, and it was questionable as to whether this would be a viable site for agricultural purposes. Balanced against this were the tilted balance, provision of affordable housing, and the point that this site had featured in both Local Plan Updates.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be refused as it was contrary to NPPF 210C and NPPF 174B. This proposal was not seconded, and as such the motion fell.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation. This was Seconded by Rachelle-Shepherd-DuBey.

Stephen Conway asked that his vote, against the motion to approve the application, be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED That application number 212720 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 276 to 297, subject to legal agreement.