Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval

Proposal: Application for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Outline Planning Consent O/2014/2280 (dated 02/04/2015). The Reserved Matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) comprise details of a mixed-use District Centre including 206 dwellings, commercial floorspace (Use Class E), a preschool, public open space, pedestrianised high street, and a mixed-use community centre building including cafe, associated community facilities and day nursery. New vehicular, pedestrian and cycle accesses to be provided with associated internal roads, parking, landscaping, drainage, substations, plant, bin and cycle storage.

Applicant: Crest Nicholson Chiltern

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 11 to 80.

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

·       Amended wording for informative 17 to clarify that the CEMP will need to refer to pedestrian and cycle access to Bohunt School.

Pamela Stubbs, Barkham Parish Council, spoke to the application.  Pamela Stubbs commented that Barkham Parish Council fully supported the application for the district centre.  For almost a decade they had taken part in discussions and consultations.  The Parish Council had tried to engage with residents and the developers about what was required for residents, but this had been difficult.  She noted that the medical centre included in an earlier iteration of the proposals was no longer included.  Pamela Stubbs went on to emphasise that it was vital that the community centre facilities were built before any further housing, and that meaningful consultation with the residents be carried out.  The residents had waited some time and deserved to be heard.

David Digby, Crest Nicholson Chiltern, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  David Digby stated that the proposals for the Arborfield Green District Centre were the result of numerous pre application post submission discussions with officers, two consultations, focus groups with stakeholders including the nursery, and feedback from an independent design review panel.  Every aspect of the proposal had been refined to ensure that it would deliver the vibrant community centre that residents needed.  He went on to highlight some of the features of the proposals including over 10,000 square feet of new shops, a new community centre, nursery, and village green with children’s play area and wildflower planting.  Sustainability was key and walking and cycling would be promoted with connections into Bohunt School.  A wide range of shopping units were proposed which had flexibility to be adapted to different sizes to meet changing local demands.  David Digby stated that all buildings were designed to be highly energy efficient with wastewater heat recovery, PV panels and electric vehicle charging points.  The new commercial space would achieve a Very Good BREEAM rating, and the community centre had potential to achieve an Excellent rating subject to specifications.  Should the application be approved enabling works were planned to start in January.  The first phase would enable the supermarket and pub to be delivered and the majority of the new shops.  The second phase would prioritise the remaining shops, the village green, the community centre and nurseries.  Refurbishment would likely overlap with Phase 1, and the last phase would deliver the remaining housing.  A dedicated and safe route to and from Bohunt School would be provided for pedestrians and cyclists during construction.

It was confirmed that all Members except Anthony Skuse had attended a site visit.

Bill Soane questioned whether all shops could be built in Phase 2 to ensure viability.  Nick Chancellor, case officer, stated that it was likely that Phase 2 would commence before Phase 1 had fully completed.  There would be logistical challenges to amending the phasing.  Priority would be given to the eastern side of the high street in Phase 2.  In response to a question from David Cornish regarding the letting of the units and trading during construction, Nick Chancellor indicated that outline planning permission was subject to a condition which required a Construction Environment Management Plan.  The letting of the units would be down to the market. 

Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey asked about contaminated land, and if any was identified, how it would be made safe.  Nick Chancellor stated that the developer would have to comply with a condition around checking whether there was any contamination present on site and establishing a remediation method to clean up any contamination should it be identified.  Rachelle Sheperd-Dubey went on to ask about ensuring a suitable fit out of the community centre, and whether the community centre would be managed by a management committee.  Nick Chancellor referred to condition 5 which indicated that the Council and the developer would need to come to an agreement on specifications before building commenced.  Nothing had been decided with regards to who would run the community centre, although there were some interested parties.  However, this was not a planning issue.  Lastly, Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey asked about the viability of the shops.  Nick Chancellor responded that the developer had undertaken work regarding the appropriate level given the population size.  The 18 units and the amount of floor space had been informed by an appraisal.  The units were different sizes allowing for different sizes of operators and flexibility.

Anthony Skuse noted that the original plans had contained a S106 agreement for a health facility but that the ICB had indicated that this was not part of its Commissioning Strategy.  Connor Corrigan, Head of Strategic Development - Planning and Delivery, commented that numerous conversations had been had with the NHS on this matter.  Surgeries now covered a much wider footprint and there was no interest in a new facility in this location.  However, there was potential for a room within the community facilities to be used as an outreach facility.

Michael Firmager was of the view that Barkham Parish Council needed to be kept better informed of the process.  He queried how it could be ensured that heat pumps were operational, and was informed that they were the main source of heat for the community centre and that the application was supported by an Energy Strategy which set out how the BREEAM criteria would be met.

Andrew Mickleburgh referred to achieving the highest practical BREEAM rating for the community centre.  He questioned whether condition 5 could be strengthened to clarify that the intent was trying to achieve an Excellent BREEAM rating.  Nick Chancellor indicated that the outline planning permission required the achievement of a Very Good rating.  Officers felt that whilst excellence could be aspired to, it could not be required.  Andrew Mickleburgh asked if it could be noted on an informative that the Committee would like to see the community building achieve a BREEAM ‘excellent’ certification.  Officers agreed.  With regards to condition 8 and public art, Andrew Mickleburgh questioned how much money would be allocated and the anticipated number of installations.  Nick Chancellor stated that the Landscape Masterplan supporting the application identified three possible areas for installations.  The developer was committed to providing public art and could potentially consult the community.  Public art did not necessarily have to be expensive but had to be right for the site.  Connor Corrigan added that the S106 had already been signed so additional sums of money could not be requested.

David Cornish sought assurance that the existing nurseries would not close prior to the construction of the new facilities.  Officers confirmed that this was the case.   He went on to ask whether the community centre had to be in the building already located on site.  Officers indicated that it was the only proposal that had been put forward.  Potentially it could be located elsewhere but additional work around funding would be required, and the agreement of the developer needed.  The refurbishment of the existing community building was the most favourable option given the cost cap.

With regards to public open space, David Cornish sought clarity as to what would be transferred to the Council, what would be retained by the developer and what would be transferred to a management committee.  Nick Chancellor commented that it was likely that the spine roads and the roads serving residential areas would be adopted by the Highways Authority.  Much of the public open space to date had been retained by the developer and a fee was paid to the management committee.  Under the s106 agreement, the Council could adopt the public open spaces. 

Wayne Smith was of the view that the application had been a long time coming and should proceed.

Alistair Neal asked whether the car park located by the school was used by the school.  Officers indicated that the school had used the car park in the past but going forwards access would be closed off to the school.

Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey asked whether the history of the site would be commemorated.  It was suggested that this could be linked to the public art condition.  Nick Chancellor commented that the area near the proposed Village Green had been subject to a design code and as part of that process the developer had proposed that there could potentially be a memorial garden.

David Cornish was of the view that the application would be welcomed by many in the community who had been waiting some time to see it actioned.  He felt that the application was innovative, forward-looking and a good design for the heart of Arborfield Green.  However, residents had had many promises from other applications which had not been fully met.  The applicant was currently in breach of planning conditions and S106 agreements.  He noted that many residents had expressed a desire that the delivery of the community facilities be actioned before the delivery of any further housing, and that the Parish Council had expressed concern regarding the community centre facility.  David Cornish was of the opinion that communication with the Parish Council and other stakeholders could be improved.  Whilst he had some concerns regarding the plans for the community centre, he felt that the application in general was a good one.  He stated that the residents’ comments suggested a loss of faith in the applicant and the Local Planning Authority and this represented an opportunity to deliver on that which had been promised for some time.

RESOLVED:  That application 230872 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 46 to 52 and amended informative 16.