Agenda item

Erection of 226 homes including associated on-site SANG with an access route, open space and pedestrian/cycle connections.

Erection of 226 homes including associated on-site SANG with an access route, open space and pedestrian/cycle connections.

The Committee noted:

·       The supplementary report tabled at the meeting.

·       The letters of objection from various groups as summarised in the agenda.

·       The 108 letters of objection as summarised in the agenda.

·       The additional letter of representation as detailed in the supplementary report.

·       The representations of the 2 public speakers at the meeting.

A motion to APPROVE the recommendation in the officer report was proposed but fell at the vote.

Therefore an alternative motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded, and on being put to the vote was CARRIED

RESOLVED that application 21/00986/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01.The development fails to make adequate provision for the parking of vehicles in accordance with the Council's adopted parking standards.  The Local Planning Authority is not persuaded by the submitted evidence that a relaxation to these standards will not lead to on-site congestion and the displacement of vehicles onto surrounding roads increasing the risk of illegal, inconsiderate or obstructive parking.  This would in turn have an adverse effect on the free flow of traffic and highway safety. It has not been demonstrated that parking to meet the Council’s adopted parking standards can be satisfactorily accommodated on site without resulting in overdevelopment and a cramped form of development.  As a result, the proposed development is contrary to Policies EN20 and  M9 of the BFBLP and Policy CS7 of the CSDPD and the Parking Standards SPD (2016).

02.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 would be contrary to Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended),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 Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

03.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 'Saved'' Policy H8 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policies CS16 and CS17 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, the Planning Obligations SPD, the resolution on affordable housing made by BFC Executive on 29 March 2011, and the NPPF.

04.The proposed development would unacceptably increase the pressure on highways and transportation infrastructure, community facilities and public open space. In the absence of planning obligations in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, and which secure a travel plan and contributions towards highway improvements, community facilities and Open Space of Public Value the proposal is contrary to Policies R4 and M4 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policies CS6, CS8, CS23 and CS24 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the Planning Obligations SPD.

05.The application fails to demonstrate that it protects and enhances biodiversity in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS7 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, the NPPF (2019), Circular 06/05, the NERC Act 2006 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species regulations 2010.

06.The applicant has not demonstrated that flood risk would not be exacerbated as a result of the proposal or that the development would be safe from flooding. This is contrary to Paragraph 167 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).