Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Outline application for the proposed erection of up to 28 dwellings, associated landscaping and open space following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings. Only access to be considered, all other matters reserved.

Applicant: Mr David Vokes

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 209 to 254.

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

·         Tree Protection Order’s which are on 3 trees on this site.

·         Hedgerows on the Southern and Eastern Boundary will be protected.

·         Electricity pole will be relocated.

·         Highways/Access

·         amended conditions 1, 2, 4, 12, 22, 24, additional condition relating to a swept path analysis,

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

Paul Fishwick, Winnersh Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He noted the residents’ objections from pages 211-216 of the report. He said that traffic around King Street Lane was a big issue between 7:45am to 9:15am which lead to traffic issues on Bearwood Road where a school was located and said that additional traffic would increase an already difficult situation and also create harmful emissions. He also mentioned that the walking distances from the site had been taken from the access and not from the centre, so there would be an extra 200m for some people living on the site to access shops. Paul Fishwick then referred to the mention of buses in the report and said there was no bus stop or regular bus service. He believed that the site was not sustainable. No reference had been made to the existing  foul water and sewage issues.

Justine McDonald, resident, spoke in objection of this application. She stated that the main concerns amongst local residents were, the impact on traffic, increased pressure on an already struggling sewage network, increased pressure on local services, the detrimental impact on wildlife and the impact on the privacy and light on existing properties. She mentioned that 200 local residents had signed a petition against the application. She then raised the issue of the access onto the site and that the access crosses into the boundary of 73 King Street Lane. She said that at 61 King Street Lane people had to move out in March 2023 due to sewage and had only moved back in Nov/Dec 2023. She asked that the Committee reject the application with 38 objections and 200+ signatures from residents.

Adam Constintanou, agent, spoke in favour of the application. He started by mentioning the dialogue with officers and residents. He added that this plan was the exact type of high-quality development that was in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. The site was energy efficient, reused brownfield land, had 40% Affordable Housing, and offered the protection of the TPO trees and the planting of extra trees. He indicated that there had been no technical objections from the Council’s statutory consultees on highways, drainage, ecological and tree and landscape matters. He concluded by saying that the application was in an inherently sustainable location and resulted in a high-quality development. He emphasised that it was an outline application so the committee were only considering access.

Councillor Prue Bray, ward member, spoke in objection to this application. She mentioned that the site was in the Local Plan Update in early 2022 and that the application had  increased from 25 to 28 dwellings. She said that a landscape buffer was needed between the housing and the countryside. She also commented that this application opened up the possibility of further development into the countryside. She referred to the revised conditions in the supplementary agenda and the fact that the indicative plans had been removed from condition 2.  She was of the view that the Committee would no longer  know what was likely  to come back at the reserved matters stage. She commented that there were no drawings to show the distance between the access road and the neighbouring properties. She believed that the access road could cause harm to the neighbouring properties . She questioned whether if approved, a management company could be set up and they may not keep surrounding areas up to standard.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey said it took her 40 minutes  in the afternoon to drive from the main road to King Street Lane. She also questioned where any children who may move into the proposed properties would go to school as all the local schools were full. Helen Maynard, case officer, emphasised that that the application was for up to 28 dwellings.

Councillor Cornish asked about the sewage report from Thames Water for the site. The case officer indicated that Thames Water had not  commented on the application. Brian Conlon clarified  that Thames Water had an obligation to connect new homes up to the sewage system prior to habitation. Councillor Soane also asked about sewage, and said the photos provided by residents of raw sewage showed a different reality to what the drainage expert said. The case officer said the drainage expert had not given any objections on surface water drainage. Foul water drainage was outside of their remit and was a matter for Thames Water.

Councillor Mickleburgh asked whether it was possible for a condition to be added that development not begin until the sewage issue was resolved. Brian Conlon referred to a Grampian condition to accommodate additional demands to serve the particular development. Councillor Mickleburgh then questioned whether a proportion of the site was brownfield land. The case officer responded that the builder’s yard on the site was brownfield, and the existing residential and residential gardens were not. Councillor Mickleburgh  referred to the buffer between the site and the countryside and asked for more clarification on this buffer. The case officer said that the indicative plan showed planted on the boundary.  Condition 29 specifically related to hedgerows and trees on the boundary and their retention.  In terms of a buffer as there was still an indicative site, what was likely to come forwards was not yet known. 

Councillor Firmager asked for some clarity from the Highways team on the traffic issues. Gordon Adam responded that as set out in the supplementary agenda the new site would add 17-50 two way movements in the peak hours, with there being 700-750 vehicle movements on King Street Lane in peak hours, he commented that this represented around 2% of vehicle movements and was not considered as a significant impact. Councillor Firmager asked about including this information and comments on applications in the main agenda rather than in supplementary agenda. Brian Conlon said including these reports in the main agenda would double the size of the report and that the comments on the applications were available online. Councillor Firmager asked whether Members could be directed to this information in future.

Councillor Neal  asked about access.  He felt that it would be gridlock during the school rush hour, and also referred to drawing 21-029/004 which showed access to site, and was concerned that pedestrians would have reduced priority. Gordon Adam said there were many examples in the Borough where the stop line was sited at the edge of the carriageway. Councillor Neal believed that pedestrians would have to wait some time to cross.

Councillor Skuse referred to there being 700-750 cars on the road at peak times and asked what the maximum capacity of a road like this would be. Gordon Adam said that the capacity would be 700-1000 but that this road was limited by how the junction works.

Councillor Cornish was reassured by comments made about the buffer between the site and the countryside.

Councillor Neal asked if the whole site was proposed in the Local Plan Update or just the brownfield part of the site. The case officer said it was the whole site but just 25 dwellings as opposed to 28.

At this point in the meeting 10.25pm Councillor Cornish proposed that the committee extended by 30 minutes to ensure that all business be completed, this was seconded by Councillor Mickleburgh. Upon being put to the vote this was agreed.

Councillor Mickleburgh commented that that reserved matters applications can be delegated to officers or to come back to committee if required.

Councillor Mickleburgh proposed that the committee approve the proposal with 2 additional conditions being that the dwellings are not occupied until assured there will be no sewage issues and also as part of a landscaping plan, that there is robust buffer between the site and the conservation area.

Officers clarified the sewage condition, that no development would be occupied until confirmation had been provided that either foul water capacity existed offsite to serve the development or a development and infrastructure plan had been agreed with Thames Water or all upgrades needed had been undertaken.

Councillor Cornish asked the Committee was approving the specific design for the access. Gordon Adam confirmed that it was the principle of the access, the design would have to be submitted at a later stage. Councillor Cornish also made the point that he wanted the reserved matters to come back to committee.

Councillor Mickleburgh’s proposal was seconded by Councillor Skuse.

RESOLVED: Approval subject to conditions and informatives on pages 240 to 250 at S106 legal agreement to be signed within 6 months, if it is not signed the committee authorise the Head of Development Management to refuse planning permission (unless a longer period is agreed by the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Committee), amended conditions 1, 2, 4, 12, 22, 24, additional condition relating to a swept path analysis, and two additional conditions that the dwellings are not occupied until Thames Water confirm the necessary sewage systems are in place and as part of a landscaping plan, that there is robust buffer between the site and the conservation area.