Issue - meetings

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck, Jeff Cant and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Moore was also personally acquainted with two of the objectors. Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact he was the Ward Member. As their interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02575/HOUSE in respect of the demolition of existing outbuildings and garage, new extension linking to house comprising double garage, store and family room with bedrooms above and attic den at the Gardeners Cottage, Tydehams, Newbury.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Gary Norman, Parish Council representative, Mr Paul Donald and Mr Francis Clayton, objectors, and Mr Arnold, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. He suggested that to mitigate residents’ concerns, Members, if minded to approve the application, could consider applying conditions on hours of work and landscaping. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Councillor Norman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was Vice-Chairman of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee and was a Member for Wash Common, where the site was located. He was not a member of the Committee at the time the application was discussed.

·         The size of the extension had been reduced since the application was considered however this and other changes made had not effected Newbury Town Council’s objection.

·         It was disappointing that neighbours had not been able to have input into the design.

·         Councillor Phil Barnett asked whether Councillor Norman was aware that Newbury Town Council’s view of Tydehams was that it was an area which benefitted from large houses and large gardens. Councillor Norman stated he was aware that the Heritage Working Group sought to list some of the properties in that area.

5.    Mr Donald and Mr Clayton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         It was disappointing that the officers recommendation had been made to the Committee before the site visit.

·         The applicant’s ambition for the extension could be achieved on a smaller scale.

·         Rendering would cause the property to look like an overwhelming mass.

·         Mr Donald had raised objections to the plans in October 2018 and no additional modifications had been made to the plans as a result. Newbury Town Council unanimously objected to the application.

·         The proposal conflicted with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: House Extensions 2004. It would not be subservient to the main property and would cause overshadowing.

·         It would not enhance the appearance of the area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20