Agenda item

Conversion of roof space of blocks A and B to provide 6no. additional flats (3no. one bedroom flats and 1no. two bedroom flat in Block A,  2no. one bedroom flats in Block B).  Provision of 9 additional car parking spaces and 10 additional cycle spaces and relocation of visitor cycle store.

Councillor Finch declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 5, 11/00015/FUL, Christine Ingram Gardens, as he lived in the road off which the development was situated.  He left the meeting during consideration of the item.

The Committee noted

• The supplementary report of the Head of Development Management tabled at the meeting.
• The comments of Bracknell Town Council
• 30 representations that had been received
• An additional representation relating to the provision of additional car parking spaces for this application and application 12/00056/FUL.

The application had met the criteria for public speaking and the Committee was addressed by Mr. Alan Thomson, a local resident.

A Development Viability Appraisal submitted with the application, and independently assessed by the District Valuer Services, concluded that, if the 6 units were NewBuild HomeBuy, a contribution could also be secured towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.  The option of providing the fully policy compliant 12 affordable units on site was not considered to be viable or practical.  The delivery of all 12 affordable units onsite was also considered by the District Valuer Services potentially to render the development unviable.

Members of the Committee expressed concerns about –

• overdevelopment of the site
• inadequate provision of affordable housing

Notwithstanding the recommendation for approval of the Head of Development Management, the Committee

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

01.    The six additional flats proposed would result in an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of local amenities.  The development would therefore be contrary to Policy EN20 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

02.     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, Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and to Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing (adopted September 2003), as revised by Planning Policy Statement 3 – ‘Housing’.

03.     The proposed development would unacceptably increase the pressure on highways and transportation infrastructure, public open space, built sports facilities, library facilities and community facilities. In the absence of a planning obligation in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, and which secure contributions towards integrated transport and highway safety measures, open space,  built sports facilities,  library facilities and community facilities, the proposal is contrary to Policy CC7 of the South East Plan, Policies R5 and M4 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Policies CS6, CS8 and CS24 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and to Supplementary Planning Document Limiting the Impact of Development (adopted July 2007).

04    The occupants of the development would put extra pressure on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and the applicants have not satisfactorily mitigated the development to comply with the Limiting the Impact of Development Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007).  In the absence of a section 106 planning obligation to secure suitable mitigation measures, the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan, Policy EN3 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.