Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of 112 no. dwellings (Class C3), family respite, family treatment and outreach hub (Class C2/D1 Use), open space, SANG, new footpaths and new vehicular access off Old Wokingham Road. 

Outline application for the erection of 112 no. dwellings (Class C3), family respite, family treatment and outreach hub (Class C2/D1 Use), open space, SANG, new footpaths and new vehicular access off Old Wokingham Road.

A site visit had been held on Saturday 12 December 2015 which had been attended by Councillors Brossard, Dudley, Hill, Mrs Ingham, Mrs McKenzie-Boyle, Peacey and Thompson.

The Committee noted:

·         The supplementary report of the Head of Planning tabled at the meeting.

·         The comments of Crowthorne Parish Council and Wokingham Without Parish Council raising objections to the proposed development.

·         Objections from Crowthorne Village Action Group and 36 letters of objection raising concerns around:

-       traffic, parking, air pollution, loss of woodland and local wildlife

-       pressure on local services

-       location inappropriate

-       further reduction of the green gap between Bracknell and Crowthorne

·         117 letters of support raising the following points:

The criteria for public speaking had been met in respect of this application and the Committee was addressed by the registered speakers Andy Holly representing the Crowthorne Village Action Group and Jane Gates, representing the applicant.

The Committee expressed concern around; the sustainability of the proposed development, the proposed location being outside existing settlement boundaries, the proximity of the sewerage treatment works, vehicular and pedestrian access/safety and drainage. The Committee also expressed disappointment that the applicant had failed to engage with the local authority on any of these issues and that the proposed development contravened numerous of the Council’s planning policies.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Part 4, a recorded vote was requested:

Councillors Angell, D. Birch, Finnie, Heydon, Hill, Mrs Ingham, Mrs Mattick, Mrs McKenzie-Boyle, Peacey, Mrs Phillips, Skinner, Thompson, Worrall, Dudley and Brossard voted in favour of the recommendation in the report proposing that the application be refused.

Councillor Mrs Angell voted against the recommendation in the report.

It was therefore RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.       The proposed development would be poorly located with regard to services and facilities with inadequate accessibility to non-car borne modes of transport which would leave future residents with no real choice about how they travel.  The proposal is therefore not sustainable development and the application is contrary to Core Strategy Development Plan Document Policies CS1, CS7 and CS23, Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan Policy EN20 and the NPPF.

2.       The proposed location of the proposal within a defined gap outside and not adjoining the settlement boundaries is considered to adversely affect the physical and visual separation of the two settlements and the character, appearance and function of the land. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies CS9, CS1 and CS7 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, supported by the Landscape Character Area Assessment 2015.

3.       The occupants of the development would put extra pressure on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and the proposal would not satisfactorily mitigate its impacts in this respect.  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, the proposal is contrary to Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan, Policy EN3 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (2012).

4.       In the absence of a planning obligation to secure affordable housing in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is contrary to Policy H8 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policies CS16 and CS17 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, the Planning Obligations SPD and the resolution on affordable housing made by BFC Executive on 29 March 2011.

5.       The applicants have failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the impact of the odour from the adjoining sewage treatment plant would not detrimentally affect the amenities of future occupiers of the site in accordance with Policy EN20 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan supported by paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.       The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed pedestrian and vehicular access would provide a safe access for all users into the site resulting in inadequate connections onto the wider road network and a severe highway danger to users of the highway. This is contrary to Policy CS23 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, supported by paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.       The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the additional traffic flows created by the proposal would not result in a severe impact on the capacity and safety of junctions within the area and the wider road network. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS23 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document supported by paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

8.       The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the site can be effectively drained through the use of a sustainable drainage system thereby increasing the risk of flooding in the locality of the site. In addition the proposed sustainable drainage strategy has not demonstrated that the proposed solution is economically proportionate to the lifetime of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, the guidance contained within Planning Practice Guidance and Ministerial Statement HCWS161 on Sustainable Drainage Systems.