Issue - meetings

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and in all but Councillor Cant’s case, served on its Planning and Highways Committee. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Carolyne Culver Abbs declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied. As their interest was 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 19/01540/HOUSE in respect of an extension to the garage and a first floor extension.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Barlow, Parish Council representative, Mr Andrew Wilcock and Ms Theresa Fleetwood, objector, Mr James McCall, supporter, and Mr Lee Clark 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.

4.     Mr Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

•        The Parish Council were against this third application. They were concerned about the projection of the building to the rear of the property and felt it was inappropriate and overbearing.

•        It was understood that in this area houses were squeezed in amongst each other and that this modern house would affect the back of the existing property.

•        Developments had to take into consideration the wellbeing of neighbours, and the Parish Council felt that a side-by-side design would have been acceptable.

•        There would be significant shadowing of the courtyard of the neighbouring property.

•        The proposal would not make a positive contribution to the area.

•        The courtyard was the only available outside space for the residents of No.1. The high wall would make the space prison-like.

•        The first application was dismissed as unacceptable due to the impact on the neighbours living conditions. The second application had been dismissed by WBC. The Parish Council recommended that the third application should also be dismissed, as the design could be modified with the extension being moved to a different location on the site, where it would not impact on the courtyard.

5.     Councillor Hilary Cole noted that according to the plans, the extension was towards the front of Cherry Hinton and some distance from the boundary of No.1. She was unable to see how this would result in the view from the courtyard being that of a large brick wall. Mr Barlow explained that the underlying Ordnance Survey map was incorrect and the plan did not give a true view.

6.     Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7