Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of 81 dwellings (including 40% affordable homes), open space, SuDS, landscaping, biodiversity enhancements, new vehicular access off Trowes Lane, pedestrian & cycle links, and associated infrastructure.

Applicant: Boyer Crowthorne House Nine Mile Ride, Wokingham RG40 3GZ

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 149 to 208.

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

·         Education and Sustainable Location.

·         Highways.

·         The Local Plan Update.

·         Additional representations from Councillors Pauline Jorgensen and Clive Jones expressing concern about the application.

All Members had attended a site visit except Councillors Soane, Smith, and Shepherd-Dubey.

Ian Fullerton, Swallowfield Parish Council, spoke in objection to this application. He commented that the application contravened a number of planning policies and would only make a very small contribution to the Council’s 5 year land supply.  Mr Fullerton was of the view that the application was unsustainable He made  reference to the lack of infrastructure within Swallowfield to serve the extra houses. He mentioned a lack of schools at pre-school level as well as primary and secondary schools, meaning all children would need to travel to school by car. He also stated that Swallowfield had limited to no employment opportunities, no supermarket, no leisure facilities, and no capacity at the medical centre. He questioned siting much needed affordable homes in an area with such limited facilities.  Ian Fullerton disagreed with the figures in the report relating to car movements, and gave a figure of 300-400 movements per day as more realistic rather than 41-47 during peak hours detailed in the report. Increased traffic would negatively impact the village. He also made comments on the increased size of the village, which would be 42%, resulting in a loss of character and urbanise the village. He urged the Committee to respect CP9 and CP11 and to vote against the recommendations.

Jeremy Bayliss, resident, spoke in objection to the application. He commented that the Council had a good record at listening to its residents and that he hoped that they do for this application too. He believed that Swallowfield was unique in the Borough as all the other villages had been developed out. Residents of Swallowfield strongly believed the application would lead to irreversible damage to the village. Mr Bayliss mentioned that the proposal was contrary to the planning policies for Swallowfield which sought to restrict development within the boundaries of the settlement. He commented that local residents had engaged with the Council but the applicants had not engaged with the residents. He was also of the view that the 42% increase in size of the village would damage its character. The extent of harm far outweighed the benefits, and for all these reasons he asked for the application to be refused.

Chris Roberts, agent, spoke in support of the application. He mentioned three main points in regards to this application, these being the site sustainability, the proposed allocation of the site and the benefits of the site. In terms of sustainability the site lay immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of the village and was suitable for the number of homes proposed.  Chris Roberts commented  that Swallowfield was relatively well served for its size. There were employment opportunities at City Base and Wyvols Court Farm.  In addition there was an hourly bus service to Reading.  He then said that the application had not come from nowhere.  The Council’s Local Plan Update revised growth strategy had identified this as the only potential allocation in Swallowfield for residential development. The site did not flood, was not ecologically constrained, and Highways had endorsed the proposed access and car parking arrangements.  It would help with the Council’s housing need. He added that the main benefit of the scheme was the 33 affordable homes within the application, with 2419 people on the social housing waiting list in the Borough. He also mentioned other benefits such as the biodiversity net gain, wildlife enhancements and 2.8 hectares of public open space.

Councillor Cornish opened the discussion and commented  that the application went against the intent of  a number of local and national planning policies. He also commented that the site had been identified the draft Local Plan Update for 2021, as a site which would be supported by the Council for housing. It could not easily be excluded from future drafts without good planning reasons indicating a change of circumstance. Should the Committee be minded to refuse the application strong planning reasons would be required and there needed to be sufficient reasons to justify the site potentially being removed from future drafts of the Local Plan Update.

Councillor Mickleburgh asked whether previous similar applications which had gone to appeal, had their appeals upheld for the reason of access to schools. Mark Croucher, case officer, referenced a previous application on Lodge Road, Hurst which had been upheld at appeal on sustainability grounds. A small application in Hurst had also been recently refused to a lack of sustainability.  He also mentioned an application  north of Nine Mile Ride where the Council had been successful at appeal, based on access to local services. He added that Inspectors generally agreed on sustainability grounds. Councillor Mickleburgh then questioned whether the fact that academies had the power to choose their own admissions criteria, would impact school options available to parents , given that all but one of the listed local secondary schools are academies. The case officer stated that the list of schools in the Supplementary Agenda hed been provided by Children’s services and detailed schools where the development would be in the catchment area, which was not the same as a school being accessible. Councillor Mickleburgh then queried about Home to School Transport and the fact that the S106 funding was unlikely to cover the possible costs of this for the long term, he asked whether this is a material planning consideration. The case officer said that it was. He said that the Local Government Settlement and funding from CIL and Council Tax should generally cover the cost. There was a concern with S106 that there would be an element of double counting, and it would not be possible, as there were other existing funding streams.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey asked what would happen should the 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) go below the existing threshold of 3.9 years. The case officer stated that the application had to be considered in line with the current position of 3.95 years, and other relevant factors..

Councillor Smith commented that he was aware of sites having been removed from the Local Plan Update. He queried the assertion in the report that Oakbank school may be in walking distance.  Councillor Smith stated that Swallowfield had a convenience store and a pub, but little else in terms of facilities. He was of the view that the site was not sustainable and commented that if there were on average 2.4 cars per household this would equate 194 cars and that would cause issues. The case officer responded  that the officer position was not that the site was highly sustainable and therefore should be approved, more that the site was unsustainable and that weighed into the planning balance. He went on to state that in terms of the percentage to the village, Officers had calculated a 20% increase when taking land area into account as opposed to residential area.

Councillor Mickleburgh mentioned policy CP11 with the location of the site being within the countryside. He asked about exceptions and said that these were usually given against the policy for an application. The case officer indicated that the application would not fall into any exceptions in policy CP11. Councillor Mickleburgh asked whether the scale of the site was relevant in the evaluation when  considering building in the countryside. The case officer stated that it was in terms of assessing against the policies in the Core Strategy, and when considering character and appearance and impact on the landscape, and also sustainability.

Councillor Soane commented that the additional Home to School Transport requirements would have a large financial impact to the Council, but would also impact on the child because of the long commute to school, necessitated by the lack of education facilities within walking and cycling distance.

Councillor Neal asked why the proposal mentioned cycle links but then in paragraph 87 of the report it stated that there were no cycle links. The case officer stated that this related to the footpaths on the southern boundary. He added that was not something that was provided on the site but was relevant to the local cycle network. Councillor Neal then questioned the local bus service as it relied on various grants to keep it going. He also commented on the access to local supermarkets, with 5 miles being the closest one which is Sainsburys Winnersh. He then asked about a discrepancy between the Parish Council’s traffic analysis and the Borough Council’s traffic analysis and asked why. Gordon Adam, Principal Highways Development Control Officer, said that the traffic assessment was undertaken using the nationally accepted means of assessing a transport assessment, looking at peak movements. The case officer referred to the supermarket point made by Councillor Neal and indicated that there was  potential for a new supermarket in Arborfield Garrison.

Councillor Cornish made the comment that the addition to the size of the village whilst hurtful to the village it did not close the settlement gap to another settlement. He reminded the Committee that the traffic levels were below the threshold that is set by planning policy. He was aware of one site which had been removed from the Local Plan. The landowner, the Council, had accepted that it be removed. Councillor Cornish then asked about the loss of high-quality agricultural land and where that sat in the balance of the decision. The case officer stated that it did weigh against it.  However, the landowner had stated that the land was not suitable for modern farming operation and that the operation would not be harmed.

Councillor Smith asked whether the site had been considered suitable or unsuitable in the 2021 Local Plan Update. The case officer said had been regarded as potentially suitable but had been considered as unsuitable in the 2020 HELAA. Councillor Smith then mentioned an appeal for a previous application in Hurst and said the inspector agreed about Sustainability issues. The case officer made the comment that the site in question was double the size, and the landscape harm and the access was worse. He then said when looking at the balance of this application, the 5 years housing land supply  and the 33 Affordable homes were given significant weight. Brian Conlon,

Operational Lead - Development Management , clarified to the Committee  that examples of successful appeals given had not  focused specifically on education.

Councillor Mickleburgh mentioned Mr Fullerton’s reference to local Swallowfield planning policy and asked whether they had a Neighbourhood Development Plan. The case officer confirmed they have no Neighbourhood Development Plan

Councillor Mickleburgh proposed that application 230422 be refused on the grounds of sustainability, specifically related to education access and access to local facilities, the harm to the countryside and the change of the size of the village due to the scale of the site.  The site would not be suitable for housing as future occupiers would have a high dependency on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities. The proposal would not promote sustainable transport modes.  

With regards to lack of sustainability as a reason for refusal, Brian Conlon sought clarification from Members whether the potential impact on the home to school transport fund and education was something which Members wished to specifically reference in a reason for refusal, or whether the issue formed part of a wider concern around access to local facilities. Specific reference to education would prevent wider consideration of the site's location to a range of services and facilities. He clarified that the Committee had identified the principal issues of the application being its conflict with the spatial strategy, and inappropriate development in the countryside in conflict with policy CP11. This was separate to the physical scale and visual impact of the application itself on the village.

Councillor Mickleburgh’s proposal was seconded by Councillor Smith.

RESOLVED: That application 230422 be refused on the grounds of

1)    a lack of sustainability and access relating to education, transport and retail,

2)    the loss of countryside contrary to policy,

3)    the scale of the application being disproportionate to to the size of the existing settlement for which it was adjoining and;

4)    In the absence of a completed Legal Agreement, the proposed development fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing, contrary to policy CP5 of the Core Strategy and section 6 of the NPPF.

5)    In the absence of a planning obligation to secure suitable avoidance and mitigation measures and access management monitoring arrangements, in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the LPA is unable to satisfy itself that the proposals include adequate mitigation measures to prevent the proposed development from having an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, in line with the requirements of Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended and Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC. The proposal would be contrary to Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan, Policies CP8 and CP4 of the Core Strategy. 

6)    In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposed development fails to secure opportunities for training, apprenticeships and other vocational initiatives to develop local employability skills contrary to MDD policy Local Plan TB12.

7)    In the absence of a completed Legal Agreement, the proposed development fails to make adequate contributions to sport and recreational facilities, contrary to MDD Local Plan policy TB08, Core Strategy policy CP4 and Sections 4 and 8 of the NPPF.

8)    In the absence of a completed Legal Agreement, the development fails to secure a schedule off-site highway works to improve pedestrian & sustainable travel infrastructure and the management/adoption of internal estate roads and public open spaces, contrary to Core Strategy policy CP1, CP3, CP4 and CP6 and MDD Local Plan policy CC03 and TB08 and sections 4, 8, 9 and 12 of the NPPF