Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved for the proposed

erection of 9 no. dwellings following demolition of the existing dwelling.

Applicant: Mrs C Burrows

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 60.

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

·         Clarity regarding existing trees and landscape features on site;

·         Clarity regarding that many matters of objection were in relation to reserved matters.

Caroline Smith, Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Caroline thanked the Committee for undertaking a site visit as requested at the previous meeting, which allowed the Committee to better understand the context of the site including highways issues, traffic, access, trees and landscaping, and the amenity of existing residents. Caroline stated that the Earley Town Council Planning Committee had recommended refusal of this application as per the comments set out within the Committee’s agenda pack. Caroline stated that the Borough needed the right homes in the right places, however that was not the case for this application. Caroline commented that as this application was only indicative, it could result in nine 3-storey properties as a worst case scenario. Caroline added that she could not see evidence of each of the concerns raised by the Highways department being fully addressed. Caroline noted that Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) drainage department had raised a concern in relation to surface water drainage, and questioned how the guidance within the NPPF would be followed to avoid flooding at numbers 23 and 25 Beauchief Close. Caroline raised concern that there was no information provided as to how the seven TPO trees would be protected, whilst the officer report noted that it was very likely that one or more would have to be felled to facilitate the development. Caroline questioned how biodiversity would be improved or even maintained when sixty-percent of the site would be built over. Caroline noted that affordable homes in the right locations needed to be developed within the Borough, however this site was not appropriate. If approved, Caroline asked that the Committee set very firm conditions that needed to be met under reserved matters, in particular a limit of nine dwellings.

Sandra Shaw, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Sandra thanked the Committee for undertaking a site visit. Sandra commented that the site was not a major development location, as it was a major development location in the 1980s and was now fully developed without the necessary infrastructure to sustain further development. Sandra stated that residents understood the nature of outline and reserved matters applications, however they could only be expected to comment on what they could see. Sandra added that some Members had previously felt it unfortunate that this was an outline application, as it would approve the principle of development in the absence of detail. Sandra stated that there was a deep sense of concern regarding access to the site, and questioned why a minor reduction to the number of dwellings would make a 5m wide access acceptable. Sandra felt that the applicant should be required to show an indicative layout whereby TPO trees would be retained. Sandra stated that there were no three-storey dwellings surrounding the site, meaning any such properties would be out of character with the surrounding area. Sandra was of the opinion that demolishing the existing property and failing to protect the hedgerow would go against measures to protect and enhance biodiversity whilst being contrary to WBC’s declaration of a climate emergency. Sandra asked that the application be refused.

Daniel Thompson, agent, spoke in support of the application. Daniel stated that this was an outline application which required a site location plan, site block plan and a proposed site plan. Daniel added that the level of detail required for such applications was kept deliberately small to allow the applicant to establish the principle of development, leaving all other matters to be determined at the reserved matters stage. Despite this, Daniel stated that a design and access document, supplementary comments and clarifications, indications of impacted TPO trees and indication of biodiversity net gain measures had been provided. Daniel added that a two for one replacement of trees would be provided. Daniel stated that between 2 and 3 affordable units would be provided in line with WBC’s policy requirements, contrary to the NPPF requirements. Daniel added that an outline application was a perfectly legitimate application, and prejudice of whether such applications were liked or preferable should not form part of the decision making process. Daniel stated that this application was about establishing a baseline and a maximum number of houses, and the applicant had worked closely with officers to achieve a site which would deliver a maximum of nine homes which provided affordable housing and addressed highways matters to the level required for an outline application. Daniel urged the Committee to approve the application.

Pauline Jorgensen, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Pauline stated that there were a number of serious concerns in relation to this application. Pauline commented that the proposed access would not meet highways standards, whilst being narrow with no pavement would make it very difficult for refuse vehicles or emergency vehicles to access the site. Pauline raised concerns over the loss of TPO trees, which was required for the access to the site to be widened. Pauline stated that Rushey Way was not a quiet residential, road, and it was essential that visibility splays were correctly implemented. Pauline felt that the site was cramped, with three gardens failing to meet standards, and questioned how having one larger garden plot negated other plots being below standard. Pauline stated that it was essential that existing properties were not overlooked by the proposed development. Pauline asked that the application be refused, as the site was cramped, had unsuitable access which did not adhere to highways standards, would result in the loss of mature TPO trees, and would deliver nine houses too many for the area.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey sought clarity regarding the affordable housing contribution and the status of WBC’s five-year housing land supply. Benjamin Hindle, case officer, stated that there was nothing in place to secure an affordable housing contribution, whilst the NPPF only required a contribution for developments of 10 units and above. Benjamin confirmed that WBC could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and eight dwellings was significant enough to tilt the balance of this application.

Michael Firmager questioned how the application demonstrated that it would not be overbearing or detrimental to the surrounding area. Benjamin Hindle confirmed that scale, layout and design were issues to be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Wayne Smith queried whether a 35 percent contribution towards affordable housing would be required for this application. Benjamin Hindle stated that recent appeal decisions had shown that Inspectors felt that policy CP6 was out of date, and the NPPF had to take precedence in such situations which did not require a contribution for developments of under 10 properties. Benjamin added that it was a risk-based exercise for the Committee to consider requiring affordable housing for this application.

Wayne Smith sought clarity as to whether some trees would need to be felled to enable access to be developed. Benjamin Hindle confirmed that whilst this was likely the case, detail would be provided at the reserved matters stage should the outline application be approved. Wayne sought clarity as to why the proposed access offset was acceptable when it contravened WBC policy. Gordon Adam, Principal Highway Development Control Officer, stated that this access would be a private access whilst existing access should be viewed ‘in the round’. Gordon added that access could not be moved due to the nature of the site, and officers were of the opinion that access would be acceptable subject to conditions and further detail at the reserved matters stage. Gordon stated that the pavement part of the access would likely be adopted, whilst the road was likely to remain unadopted.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried why a 30m junction offset was usually required. Gordon Adam stated that such an offset was to minimise the interaction between traffic between one minor junction and another. Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether there was any guidance as to when the requirement for a 30m offset should apply. Gordon Adam stated that officers assessed each application ‘in the round’ against a range of factors. This site was for a maximum of 9 dwellings which would equate to approximately 5 vehicle trips in the peak hour compared to much higher trip rates on Rushey Way and Tiptree Close. Gordon stated that this access would not represent a junction, but instead just access to a minor development site.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried how a refuse vehicle might access the site. Gordon Adam stated that this would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage, however should a refuse lorry be unable to access the site then a bin collection store could be included near the access to the site.

Wayne smith sought clarity on the definition of the site and land. Benjamin Hindle confirmed that the site comprised of previously developed land within a major development location.

There was some discussion regarding affordable housing contribution. At this point of the meeting, Daniel Thompson, agent, stated that his understanding from an email conversation with the previous case officer was for 2 of the front facing units to Rushey Way to be delivered as affordable housing units.

Wayne Smith queried where waste would be stored and collected as his understanding from other sites was that refuse vehicles would not use unadopted roads due to insurance liabilities. Benjamin Hindle stated that refuse vehicles should be able to use unadopted roads, and cited such instances at other sites in the Borough.

Michael Firmager raised concern over the potential of a communal bin store being accessed by a refuse lorry on the main road, which could take a considerable amount of time leading to highway safety concerns.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried how details and plans would be developed to address issues raised by residents and Members should the outline application be approved. Benjamin Hindle confirmed that the applicant would work with officers, and any future reserved matters application could be considered by the Planning Committee. Benjamin added that a further consultation would be carried out for any future reserved matters application.

It was noted that there was considerable interest in this application returning to the Committee should it progress to the reserved matters stage. Given this, Benjamin Hindle confirmed that the case officer for the reserved matters stage would be instructed to send details of the final proposal to the Committee to allow it to be called in and considered.

Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, provided clarity with regards to affordable housing contributions. Brian stated that the original application was for 10 units, which would have required affordable housing. The scheme was subsequently amended to a maximum of nine units, which fell below the national requirement for affordable housing contributions whilst local policies still required such a contribution. Recent appeal decisions for developments of five to ten units had left WBC unable to successfully argue that such schemes should be refused on the basis of lack of affordable housing contribution. A viability assessment had not been carried out for this site, and for officers to insist on affordable housing contributions would require officers to be prepared to defend a refusal based on a lack of affordable housing provision. Brian added that whilst the agent had declared intent to deliver two affordable units, the viability assessment could show that it was not viable to provide any such contribution. Brian confirmed that the application was acceptable to officers in the absence of affordable housing contributions.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the Committee could require provision of affordable housing, subject to viability. Brian Conlon stated that the Committee was at liberty to amend the recommendation. Brian added that any such requirement would be subject to legal agreement and viability.

Wayne Smith was of the opinion that the Committee had been placed in a difficult position whereby they were being asked to approve the principle of development for a site where he could identify a range of issues, such as access and landscaping. Wayne felt that the only option left open to the Committee was to scrutinise any future reserved matters application thoroughly.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that he had found the site visit extraordinarily useful to help understand the context of the site and its surroundings. Andrew added that nothing he had seen, considered or heard had led him to believe that it was impossible for the site to accommodate nine homes. Andrew added that the site was located within a sustainable area, and noted that any reserved matters application would be considered in detail by the Committee.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation, subject to provision of affordable housing secured via S106 agreement subject to viability, with the detailed wording of the S106 agreement to be agreed in conjunction with the Chair and Vice-Chair. This was seconded by Tony Skuse.

RESOLVED That application number 221797 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 46 to 50, and subject to provision of affordable housing secured via S106 agreement subject to viability, with the detailed wording of the s106 agreement to be agreed in conjunction with the Chair and Vice-Chair.