Issue - meetings

(Councillor James Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum and was until recently a member of the Ramblers Association Committee for West Berkshire and since all applications are adjacent to public rights of way, this interest was relevant. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied in respect of the application.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01083/FUL in respect of a replacement dwelling.

2.            Sarah Melton 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 unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers strongly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

Removal of Speaking Rights

3.            As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had been replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

4.            In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution written submissions had been received from the applicant, Ashley Jones.

5.            The written submission were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Applicant’s Submission

Our ambition is straightforward. We wish to create a better home for our family by replacing an unattractive 4 bedroom bungalow with an attractive and sustainable, 4 bedroom home of high quality design and construction.

We would like to address the WAPC agenda report, with the hope that our application, which is widely supported by neighbours and local residents, receives a fair hearing at committee.

1.    Height

This is a two storey dwelling with reduced eaves and bedrooms pushed into the loft space. There is no scope, as in WAPC agenda, 1.1, to provide further accommodation in the loft. As the officer rightly identifies, the available loft height is a maximum of 1.6m at the ridge.

The proposed property will be 30cm higher and not 1.7m higher than the telegraph pole, as suggested by the officer in WAPC site photographs page 12. This photo is misleading due to perspective. Neighbouring dwelling The Glenn is circa 2.5m higher than the proposed dwelling. Relative building heights are demonstrated,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11