MAIDENHEAD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

7 May 2014 Item: 3 Application 14/00350/FULL No.: Location: Bellman Hanger Shurlock Row Reading RG10 0PL Proposal: Erection of 4 dwellings with associated access and landscaping following the demolition of the existing buildings and hardstanding Applicant: Mr Craker- Shanly Homes Limited Agent: Not Applicable Parish/Ward: Waltham St Lawrence Parish

If you have a question about this report, please contact: Fiona Jones on 01628 796355 or at [email protected]

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The proposed development would be perceived as more urbanising impact and the buildings would be seen as sprawling over a greater area than the existing hanger building. It would therefore have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development on the site and would thus cause harm due to its inappropriateness, its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and its harm to the amenity of the Green Belt and the rural character of the site and its countryside setting.

1.2 The site is in an isolated location and would not represent a sustainable form of development within this rural location.

1.3 Overall, it would conflict with the overall aims of the Council’s Green Belt policies of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework NPPF.

It is recommended the Panel refuses planning permission for the following summarised reasons (the full reasons are identified in Section 10 of this report): 1. Notwithstanding the reduction in the footprint and total volume of buildings on the site, the proposal by reason of the disposition of buildings across the site frontage would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than existing development on the site. The proposed development therefore represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to the provisions of saved Policies GB1 and GB2 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (Incorporating Alterations adopted June 2003) and paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the Local Planning Authority is not persuaded that very special circumstances exist which would justify approval in the context of established policies for controlling development in the Green Belt. 2 The proposal by reason of the size, siting and layout of the proposed houses coupled with the entrance gates and refuse/recycling stores, would introduce development of a suburban style and layout, out of keeping with the rural scale, style and character of properties within this part of Shurlock Row and the wider sylvan character of the countryside in this part of the Green Belt, which would be harmful to the visual amenities and character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan Policies GB2, N7, H10, H11 and DG1. 3. The site is in an isolated location and a significant distance from public transport and local amenities and the future residents would be totally reliant on their cars to reach essential day to day items; the proposal thus represents an unsustainable form of development contrary to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 3 In the absence of a completed planning obligation to secure such provision, the proposal fails to make provision for affordable housing, off-site infrastructure and

22 amenity improvements directly related to the development in accordance with the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with Local Plan Policies IMP1, R3, H3, and T6.

2. REASON FOR PANEL DETERMINATION

• At the request of Councillor Kellaway, in the public interest, to review the application in the context of the Borough Local Plan and Neighbourhood plans.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

3.1 Bellman’s Hanger is a 1940s, 2600sqm hanger originally used for storage in connection with the nearby airfield. It is now used as a permanent storage facility. The hanger sits in a site approximately 7200sqm (0.72ha) in size with the building measuring 6.1m high at its lowest point and 8.1m at its peak, 54m long and 39m wide. It is located on the east side of Shurlock Row, outside of the village of Shurlock Row. The site is surrounded by fields and woodland with Crockford’s Copse directly adjoining the site to the north. Mature and very tall trees border the site to the north and south and a small pond exists within the site. Adjoining the site to the south is a house and agricultural buildings in association with a smallholding. The area is rural in nature with a few residential properties in large plots sporadically located either side of the road in proximity to the Hanger.

3.2 Shurlock Row is a classified unnumbered road (C8732) that is subject to a varying speed limit, with the speed limit at the site being 60mph.

3.3 The site is located in Flood Zone 3.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ANY RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and hardstanding and erection of 4 no. x 5 bedroom dwellinghouses with integral garages (for plots 1, 2, and 3) and separate detached garage for plot 4 with associated access, parking, turning and landscaping. The calculations given by the applicants show the differences in floorspace between that existing and proposed:

Existing Proposed Overall floorspace 2,684 sq. m GIA 1,674 sq. m GIA Building footprint 2170 sq. m 1,023 sq. m Hardstanding 2672 sq. m 1,289 sq. m

4.2 The access is maintained in its existing position but through 2m high entrance gates with brick piers which will be set off the main road by 9m. Either side of the gates will be two brick built refuse and recycling stores measuring 6m long x 3m wide and 4.3m high with pitched roofs. Plot 1 is orientated to face the road and access to Plots 2 and 3 is via an internal access road. The houses of plots 2 and 3 will face onto the fields and woodland (north). Another access road running south along the site leads to plot 4 with this house facing west. The sizes of the houses are as follows:

Plot 1 – 8.2m high, 20.2m wide and 15.5m deep Plot 2 – 8.2m high, 19.3m wide and 15.5m deep Plot 3 – 8.2m high, 15m wide and 21.5m deep Plot 4 – 8.2m high, 14.8m wide and 14.8m deep

4.3 A separate double garage with accommodation in the roof is proposed for plot 4 in a building measuring 7.3m high, 8.5m wide and 6.7m deep. The houses on plots 3 and 4 will be located to

23 the rear of the site, 1000m from the entrance to the site. All properties would benefit from rear gardens and space for parking 3no. vehicles.

4.4 The appellant’s design and access statement states that the “dwellings are designed to take on a relatively simple and traditional appearance comprising the use of hipped roofs set under a plain clay tile and gable features (with accompanying half hips) set over a wholly brick superstructure finished in a high quality red multi stock brick”.

12/01734/CLU Certificate of Lawfulness to determine whether an Granted existing external storage area is lawful 20.08.12 12/00418/CLU Certificate of Lawfulness to determine whether an Refused existing external storage area is lawful. 11.04.12 99/34780/VAR Variation of Condition No. 1 of 429330 to allow Permitted permanent use of premises for storage purposes. 31.05.2000 98/33395/FULL Demolition of existing warehouse and replacement Withdrawn with three detached houses and associated 16.06.1999 garages. 95/01606/TEMP Storage use (renewal of permission 423475) Permitted 03.11.1995 95/01605/FULL Demolition of existing warehouse and erection of 4 Refused x five bedroom houses and associated parking. 22.08.1997 95/01604/FULL Demolition of existing warehouse building and yard Refused and construction of three detached houses and 20.03.1995 detached double garages and access road. 94/01499/FULL Demolition of existing warehouse building and yard Refused and construction of three detached houses and 30.08.1994 triple garages and access road. 92/01315/OUT Replacement of storage/ warehouse building with 5 Refused detached houses 22.02.1993 92/01314/OUT Erect five detached houses and double garages. Withdrawn Demolition of existing building. 08.04.1992 92/01312/FULL Permanent consent to utilise B8 building for Refused storage purposes. 29.07.1992

4.5 Planning application reference 92/01315/OUT was refused for the following reasons:

1) The site lies within the Green Belt wherein there is a general presumption against any development other than that essential for agriculture or that falling within any of the exceptions set out within Policy EN3 of the Replacement Structure Plan for Berkshire or Policy 1 of the Green Belt Local Plan for Berkshire. In the opinion of the LPA the proposals do not accord with those policies nor are there any exceptional circumstances or reasons to justify overriding the policies. 2) In the opinion of the LPA, having regard to the number and configuration of dwellings and character of the surrounding area, the proposals would result in a relatively cramped and intrusive form of development with an urban appearance, which is harmful to the open, rural character of the area. As such, the proposals are considered to be contrary to Policy 8 of the Green Belt Local Plan for Berkshire.

4.6 Planning application reference 94/01499/FULL was refused for the following reasons:

1) The site lies within the Green Belt wherein there is a general presumption against any development other than that essential for agriculture or that falling within any of the exceptions set out within Policy EN3 of the Replacement Structure Plan for Berkshire; Policy C4 of the

24 Berkshire Structure Plan 1991 – 1996 (Proposed Modifications); Policies 1 and 8 of the Green Belt Local Plan for Berkshire and policies GB1, GB2 and GB4 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan, Deposit Draft. In the opinion of the LPA the proposals do not accord with those policies nor are there any exceptional circumstances or reasons to justify overriding the policies.

2) In the opinion of the LPA, having regard to the scale and configuration of dwellings and character of the surrounding area, the proposals would result in a relatively cramped and intrusive form of development with an urban appearance, which is harmful to the open, rural character of the area. As such, the proposals are considered to be contrary to Policy 8 of the Green Belt Local Plan for Berkshire and Policy GB4 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan, Deposit Draft.

4.7 Planning application reference 95/01604/FULL was refused for the same reasons as 94/01499/FULL above with an additional reason as follows:

3) The proposed development would result in an increased use of an access which is sub- standard in visibility at its junction within Shurlock Road. This would adversely affect the convenience and safety of road users.

5 MAIN RELEVANT STRATEGIES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Royal Borough Local Plan

5.1 The main strategic planning considerations applying to the site and the associated policies are:

Highways Design and High Risk of Developer Protected Green Belt and new housing Flooding Contributions Trees Parking

Local DG1, H8, H9, GB1, GB2, P4, T5 T6, R2, R3, N6 F1 Plan H10 GB3 IMP1

5.2 Supplementary planning documents adopted by the Council relevant to the proposal are:

• Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions • Interpretation of Policy F1 – Areas liable to flooding • Interpretation of Policies R2 to R6 – Public Open Space provision • Sustainable Design and Construction • Planning for An Ageing Population More information on these documents can be found at: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/pp_supplementary_planning.htm

Other Local Strategies or Publications

5.3 Other Strategies or publications relevant to the proposal are:

• RBWM Landscape Character Assessment – view using link at paragraph 5.3 • RBWM Parking Strategy – view using link at paragraph 5.3 • RBWM Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – view using link at paragraph 5.3 • National Planning Policy Framework – Core Planning Principles

Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. These twelve principles are that planning should:

25 • be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans should be kept up-to-date and be based on joint working and co-operation to address larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency; • not simply be about scrutiny but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; • proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities; • always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; • take account of the different roles and character of different areas promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change and encourage the reuse of existing resources including conversion of existing buildings and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy); • contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land or development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework; • encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value; • promote mixed use developments and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage or food production); • conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations; • actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and • take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.

6. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATION

6.1 The key issues for consideration are:

i Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and surrounding countryside and whether there are any very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm caused to the Green Belt

ii The impact on the area liable to flood;

26

iii Highways matters

iv Other matters

Green Belt

6.2 The site is wholly within the Green Belt and is not within a defined settlement or village. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that “a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development”. This should be read in the context of the requirements of Local Plan Policies GB1, GB2 and GB3 which resist the development of new residential dwellings on a site such as this one, unless Very Special Circumstances are provided. Paragraph A of Policy GB2 echoes the latter part of paragraph 89; paragraph B complements one of the core principles listed in NPPF paragraph 17, namely that planning should: “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”. The proposal is considered to have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and thus contrary to the NPPF for the following reasons.

6.3 The proposed dwellinghouses, would result in the subdivision of the site into four separate plots with the gardens for those houses likely to include all the paraphernalia associated with residential dwellings. Whilst the dwellinghouses would be a similar height to the existing hanger, two of the residential buildings and associated curtilage would be located outside of the current building mass of the hanger, taking it onto land which is currently open and therefore this aspect of the proposal would be unacceptable.

6.4 The refuse buildings and gates fronting the site and the views through to the executive-style housing within the site is a stark contrast to the prevailing character and appearance of this rural area which is dominated with open fields and woodland. The associated driveways, lawns and other domestic features will have a manicured and semi-urban appearance. Whilst the removal of the hanger building would be a positive feature, its replacement needs to be carefully considered with a development which would not harm the openness, or the rural character of the site within this countryside setting. The resultant urbanising impact of the proposal would not outweigh the gains of losing the large hanger building and its associated usage.

6.5 The applicant submits that the following factors should be regarded as Very Special Circumstances justifying the proposal:

• The existing use on the site is a lawful but non‐conforming use in Green Belt terms • The existing buildings are unsightly and represent a scale of development which causes harm to the Green Belt location within which it sits and the proposal offers an opportunity for this harm to cease • The reduction in the scale of development on site would enable substantial improvements to the openness of the Green Belt • There would be a significant visual improvement in the amenities of the area with the reduction of the present unsightly buildings (when viewed from the public realm) • The building is not fit for purpose and has reached the end of its useful life • The proposal would offer a significant reduction in built footprint of 53% • The proposal would offer a significant reduction in floorspace of 38% • The proposal would offer a significant reduction in hardstanding of 52% • The proposal would result in the removal of associated heavy commercial traffic

27 6.6 It has been the Council’s practice in implementing Green Belt policy to seek significant reductions in the extent of built development in order to maintain openness and minimise and mitigate impact on the character of the countryside. It would therefore be expected that a higher percentage than the 53% proposed of built footprint should be removed. One of the examples used by the applicant where planning permission was approved within the Green Belt for a ‘similar’ case is at Mushroom Farm. However, in that case, the reduction in the extent of buildings on the site was significantly greater than here proposed, namely a reduction in building footprint of some 74%. It is not considered that the applicant has successfully demonstrated that there are Very Special Circumstances justifying the scale, design and nature of development of this previously developed site in the Green Belt. National and local policies are clear that if such circumstances are not present, inappropriate development should not be allowed.

6.7 Furthermore, it should be noted, that the majority of reasons given above for VSC were applicable in the 1990s when the previous applications were considered unacceptable the change in circumstance since that time is the adopting of the NPPF. The wording of the policies which the 1994/95 applications was determined against remains largely the same as the current Local Plan policies. The proposal does not meet any of the criteria set out in Policy GB3.

6.8 A scheme which raises similar issues and was dismissed on appeal on 27th January 2014 was for the demolition of an existing farm building and erection of 5 detached houses with garaging at Thrift Wood Farm on Ockwells Farm in Maidenhead (ref. 13/02404/FULL). Here the Inspector noted that “The proposed buildings would have a smaller footprint, mass and volume than the existing buildings on the site and in this respect would have less impact on the openness of the Green Belt...Two of the proposed dwellings and the garage to plot 3 would encroach into an area currently devoid of buildings and the dwellings would typically be taller than the existing structures on the site. In addition, the site would be subdivided into five separate plots which would result in a considerable amount of compartmentalisation within the site. For these reasons the proposed development as a whole would be perceived as more intensive and the buildings would be seen as sprawling over a greater area than the existing development. It would therefore have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development on the site. I conclude on this issue that the scheme would cause harm due to its inappropriateness, its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and its harm to the amenity of the Green Belt and the rural character of the site and its countryside setting. It would conflict with the overall aim of Green Belt policy, policies DG1& GB2 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Collectively and amongst other things they seek to ensure that new development does not harm the openness or amenity of the Green Belt, responds to local character, is compatible with the surrounding development and will add to the overall quality of the area.” This same conclusion can be made for this site.

Highways issues

6.9 The development is likely to result in a slight increase in the number of vehicle movements of between 20-40 movements per day. This part of Shurlock Row is subject to a 60mph speed limit and requires a stopping sight distance (SSD) of 2.4m x 215m. The applicant has been requested to provide a SSD according to DMRBs design requirements via a speed survey conducted during a weekday between the hours of 07:30am and 19:00pm. However, currently the applicant can only achieve SSDs of 2.4m x 80m left and 2.4m x 65m right. Information/data on the existing traffic movements compared to the likely proposed traffic movements has also been requested to assess this impact on the area. At the time of writing the applicant has not submitted this additional information.

6.10 Another significant issue is that the refuse provisions are unacceptable due to the distance that plots 3 and 4 have to deposit there refuse at the refuse stores. The Royal Borough standards and Manual for Streets allow for a maximum distance of 30m that a resident should have to travel to the bin store; with the refuse operatives travelling a maximum 25m from the highway to collect refuse. The proposed distance for residents would be over 80m, wholly unacceptable for any future resident to travel, particularly during winter months and in inclement weather. Furthermore, a turning area is required for refuse and service vehicles if the length of the shared drive exceeds 20 metres. The turning area detailed in plans is not far enough into the site to

28 allow a sensible sighting of the refuse stores. For these reasons, the proposal is unacceptable and contrary to policies T5 and P4.

Flooding

6.11 The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) demonstrates that, whilst the EA show that the site is within Flood Zone 3, the ground levels on the site are above the flood levels for the 1 in 100 year plus an allowance for climate change flood event. The proposed development would reduce the built footprint on site from 2,155m² to 1,100m² and finished floor levels are proposed to be raised 300 mm above the 1 in 100 year flood plain level with an allowance for climate change. Based on the detailed flood modelling, a low hazard access and egress is achievable from the development to an area outside the flood plain. Therefore, there is no objection raised on flooding grounds and in the event that planning permission is granted, the EA recommend a condition be attached requiring finished floor levels to be set no lower than 36.77m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

Other Material Considerations

6.12 The character of the area is one of large houses in substantial plots within this countryside setting. The proposal would represent an alien form of development with detached dwellings in close proximity to each other on relatively small plots compared to the prevailing character. The proposed access road would be located to the rear of the gardens of plots 1 and 2 and whilst the amount of traffic leading to plot 4 would not be excessive, the location of an internal road in this manner does not lead to a good standard of design. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states “that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside” The site is not sustainably located as it is an isolated site and is a significant distance from public transport and local amenities whereby the future residents would be totally reliant on their car to reach essential day to day items.

6.13 The site is located adjacent to a smallholding with cattle and farm smells and noises associated with this use. There are very tall and mature trees on the boundary with the site which will act as a screen and there is no intention for these to be felled. Therefore, while there may be occasions that the farm use may cause some pollution, it is not considered to be so harmful to warrant refusal on this ground.

6.14 The application has been supported with an Ecological Assessment which concludes that the buildings in the site have negligible potential for bats. The pond has ‘Average Suitability’ for great crested newts when scored against the Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). It is recommended that either great crested newt surveys are carried out on the pond, or that the pond is retained within the proposed scheme. It is not considered that there are any other protected species issues in the site. Recommendations for mitigation and enhancements have been provided, which includes bat and bird boxes, planting new fruit trees, and planting a green faēade to attract and retain wildlife in the site.

6.15 The applicant’s have undertaken an Arboricultural Implications Report, a survey of 41 individuals, six groups of trees, one hedge and two woodlands growing on or immediately adjacent to this site, in accordance with British Standard BS 5837: 2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations. The assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on these trees shows that six individuals and two groups of trees are to be removed. Of these, none form part of the key arboricultural features of the site. None are covered by a tree preservation order, and none are category ‘A’ or ‘B’ trees. There are incursions into the root protection areas (RPAs) of three individuals and two groups of trees to be retained. These incursions extend to no more than 4.8% of individual RPAs. Their sizes and locations, the methods by which their potential impacts will be minimised,

29 and the current physiological condition and likely tolerance of disturbance of these trees suggest that no significant or long-term damage will occur as a result.

6.16 The spatial relationship between the proposed dwellings and the trees to be retained is such that there is no evidence to suggest that occupancy of these plots would inevitably lead to future pressure to fell any of them. The proposed scheme does not encroach into the adjacent ancient woodland, and whilst there are incursions into the associated 15m buffer, these are by replacement hard surfacing and gardens and not by the proposed dwellings. Moreover, the existing storage unit and smaller buildings currently within the buffer will be removed, resulting in the incursion being reduced by 222m². The proposal is considered to comply with policy N6 of the Local Plan which seeks to protect trees.

7. ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

7.1 This development would place additional pressure on local services and infrastructure. The Council requires local services and infrastructure to be improved alongside development and to be funded by the developer in accordance with its Supplementary Planning Documents setting out the relevant costs (see paragraph 5.3). In this case these improvements can be secured through an undertaking under S106 of the 1990 Planning Act completed before planning permission is granted. Details of the funding and projects are shown below:

Service Area Amount (£) Related Projects

Education £39,765.42 Appropriate, related projects taken from the asset management plans current at the time that monies are spent for the following schools 1 St Edmund Campion Catholic Primary School £1,751.14 2 The Maidenhead Villages Subarea Primary Schools £15,760.30 3 Altwood Church of England School £4,965.36 4 Cox Green School £4,965.36 5 Furze Platt Senior School £4,965.36 6 Newlands Girls' School £4,965.36 7 SEN Provision, including Manor Green School £2,392.53 Community £2,432.00 Related community and youth projects including but and Youth not limited to Mobile Project and Parish Youth facilities Outreach scheme Library £886.96 Some or all of the following appropriate, related services projects at Mobile & Home Library Services; 1 Replacement Mobile Library (120k), Link mobiles to Library Management System (30k), Provide Mobile ICT training on new vehicle (150k), Additional stock contribution (£10k), RFID (£30k) Waste £500.00 Provision of refuse bins and recycling boxes Disposal / Recycling S106 £354 To be collected upon implementation of a planning Monitoring permission, for the administration costs over the Fee lifetime of the planning obligation (including any necessary compliance and enforcement work Total £43,938.38

7.2 The site is larger than 0.5ha and therefore policy H3 is relevant which requires a contribution for affordable housing. The applicant has not confirmed that such a contribution would be forthcoming.

30

8. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Comments from interested parties

9 occupiers were notified directly of the application. The planning officer posted a statutory notice advertising the application at the site on 20th February 2014

6 letters were received objecting to the application, summarised as:

Where in the Comment report this is considered 1. Number of houses with small gardens more suited to an urban area 6.2-6.8 than one within the Green Belt – overdevelopment of the site where one house would be more suitable. The openness of the Green Belt will be adversely affected. 2. Number of houses on this plot is out of keeping with the character of the 6.4 area 3. The entrance is on a busy road outside of the 40mph and traffic is often 6.9 very fast at this stretch of the road 4. The use of the internal access roads are not used very often and this Noted would change with the proposed development 5. A previous application for 3 houses was refused and there should be no 6.7 change to those reasons for refusal 6. Proposal adjacent to a working farm which needs to be taken into 6.12 consideration for future occupants and during construction. 7. No more than four houses should be built so not to restrict local 7.1 amenities 8. Sewage problems which would be exacerbated by this development Not a planning matter.

Statutory consultees

Where in the Consultee Comment report this is considered Waltham St Strongly objects to the proposal for the following reasons: Lawrence 1) Conflict with existing policy GB2 in that the application 6.2-6.8 Parish would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Council Belt by reason of the scale of development throughout the

site and a material increase in level of activity compared to previous long term low key storage use 2) In 1995 application 426529 for 3 (not 4) houses was refused on the additional ground of ‘cramped and intrusive Agree form of development with an urban appearance harmful to the open rural character of the area’. This still applies 3) With increased traffic and outside the new 40mph speed 6.9 limit vehicles now accelerate on the same side as the entrance. 4) Neither the NPPF (para 89) on replacement ‘in the same use’, nor the emerging Local Plan (para 6.6.1) indicates this

31 site as acceptable for a major redevelopment. 6.2-6.8 5) In view of the total inability of our sewage system to cope even in more normal winter rain conditions (arising out of the Not a planning Knowl Hill overflow and failure of adequate pumping matter combined with a high water table prone to flooding) no further development, other than a one for one replacement, is acceptable. Environment No objection. The FRA demonstrates that ground levels on 6.11 Agency the site are above the flood levels for the 1 in 100 year plus an allowance for climate change flood event. Based on the detailed flood modelling and a low hazard access and egress is achievable from the development to an area outside the flood plain.

Other consultees and organisations

Where in the Consultee Comment report this is considered Waltham St Support the Parish Council’s comments as it is a cramped 6.2-6.8, 6.13 Lawrence & over-development with houses extending beyond the Shurlock boundary of the hangar building. Proposal does impact on Row the openness of the Green Belt and creates greater daily Preservation activity compared to the existing use. Would be adjacent to a Society working farm with a prize herd of Hereford cows Highways Refuse for following reasons: 6.9-6.10 Department 1) Visibility at the existing access is substandard and its extended use would be detrimental to highway safety. 2) The proposed development does not comply with the local authority and Manual for Streets design / guidelines in respect of refuse collection.

9. APPENDICES TO THIS REPORT

• Appendix A - Site location plan • Appendix B – Ground floor plans • Appendix C - Elevations

This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. The Case Officer has sought solutions to these issues where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area, in accordance with NPFF.

In this case the issues have been unsuccessfully resolved.

10. REASONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL IF PERMISSION IS NOT GRANTED CR; 1 Notwithstanding the reduction in the footprint and total volume of buildings on the site, the proposal by reason of their disposition across the site frontage would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than existing development on the site. The proposed development therefore represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to the provisions of saved Policies GB1 and GB2 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

32 Local Plan (Incorporating Alterations adopted June 2003) and paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the Local Planning Authority is not persuaded that very special circumstances exist which would justify approval in the context of established policies for controlling development in the Green Belt.

2 In the absence of a completed planning obligation to secure such provision, the proposal fails to make provision for Affordable Housing, off-site infrastructure and amenity improvements directly related to the development in accordance with the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Infrastructure and Amenity Requirements. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with Local Plan Policies IMP1 and H3.

3 The site is in an isolated location and a significant distance from public transport and local amenities whereby the future residents would be totally reliant on their car to reach essential day to day items and thus represents an unsustainable form of development contrary to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

4 The proposal by reason of the size, siting and layout of the proposed houses coupled with the entrance gates and refuse/recycling stores, would introduce development of a suburban style and layout, out of keeping with the rural scale, style and character of properties within this part of Shurlock Row and the wider sylvan character of the countryside in this part of the Green Belt, which would be harmful to the visual amenities and character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan Policies GB2, N7, H10, H11 and DG1.

33 34 11.4

1.25 4.8 1.35

Mercedes 2629LL Econic Rear Steer Refuse Overall Length 11.400m Overall Width 2.490m Overall Body Height 3.749m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.302m Track Width 2.290m Lock to Lock Time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 8.050m

'Sorbon', Aylesbury End, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. HP9 1LW Tel: 01494 671331 Fax: 01494 676417 DX 34507 Beaconsfield

35 Proposed West Street Elevation AA scale 1:100

Proposed North Street Elevation BB scale 1:100

'Sorbon', Aylesbury End, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. HP9 1LW Tel: 01494 671331 Fax: 01494 676417 DX 34507 Beaconsfield

Proposed West Street Elevation CC scale 1:100

36 37