Issue - meetings

(Councillors Carolyne Culver and James Cole declared a personal 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 19/02144/FULD in respect of a Section 73: Variation of Condition 2 - 'Approved plans' of previously approved application 19/00277/FULD: Replacement dwelling.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Anthony Stansfeld, supporter, and Mr Callan Powers (Fowler Architecture and Planning Ltd), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Sian Cutts introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

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

·                     Neither the Parish Council nor the District Councillor had objected to this proposal.

·                     Three mansions had been built in Kintbury and West Woodhay in recent years, which made this proposal look like a small cottage.

·                     It would be an unobtrusive house and would not be seen from the road.

·                     Templeton Road was a private road.

·                     Planning decisions needed to be consistent. He understood this was a large extension, but he could not see the harm in approving the application in this case.

·                     He would have objected, as he had done in the past, if he felt the proposal was harmful.

·                     As there were larger designs which had been approved in the area, he did not feel that this would be setting a precedent.

5.     Mr Power in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The applicants apologised for not being able to attend the meeting.

·                     This proposal was in addition to the extant permission, to the rear of the property.

·                     This would be the family home for the foreseeable future and was not disproportionate, in his view. Overall the visual effect of the extension would be neutral.

·                     The design was of a fall-back position and would be shielded from the road. The plot was ample and the visual impact would be insignificant.

·                     The applicant had offered a range of measures that would mitigate the carbon impact, which the Committee and officers had no means to compel.

·                     West Berkshire Council had declared a Climate Emergency and the extra measures offered by the applicant should be given extra weight by Members in their decision, as they exceeded expected standards.

·                     Approval should be given as this would be an improved, environmentally sustainable site.

·                     The removal of trees for the third parking space was included in the extant permission. There had been no objection made by the Highways or Tree officers.

·                     He asked that the Committee follow the lead of the Parish Council and approve this application.

6.     Councillor Claire Rowles asked whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11