Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 11 May 2010.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11^th May 2010 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members.

Councillors Tony Vickers, Gordon Lundie and Hilary Cole declared an interest in Agenda Items 4 (1) to (3), but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Sarah Clarke declared an interest in Agenda Items 4 (1) to (3), but reported that her interest was personal and not prejudicial, and therefore determined that she would remain to provide legal advice to the Committee.

Councillor Julian Swift-Hook presented a petition to the Committee in respect of Agenda Items 4 (1) to (3) which stated that “We the undersigned, call upon West Berkshire Council to follow the clear and unambiguous advice of English Heritage, the Council’s own Conservation Officer, and the Council’s own Planning Officers, and to REFUSE planning permission for the permanent storage of cars on this historic site, a Scheduled Ancient Monument of international significance”.

Under paragraph 7.3.3 of the Council’s Constitution the Chairman advised that he would vary the order of the agenda and consider the petition during the Ward Member presentation on agenda items (1) to (3).

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications).

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was good friends with Councillor Julian Swift-Hook who had campaigned against the applications. However, he had not predetermined the applications and would make a decision based on the evidence presented at the meeting. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Gordon Lundie declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the Executive Member for Culture and Leisure. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she had been lobbied on the applications. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Sarah Clarke declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors was known to her. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined that this would not preclude her from providing legal advice to the Committee on the matter).

The Committee considered reports (Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3)) concerning Planning Applications 10/02001/FUL, 10/02005/COMIND, and 10/02006/COMIND for the change of use of land to permanent storage of cars (B8) on Site E on the land at the former GAMA site, Greenham Common, the removal of Condition 6 on planning permission reference No. 08/01146/COMIND and the removal of condition 6 on planning permission reference No. 08/01150/COMIND respectively.

The Chairman of the Committee advised that agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) would be discussed together due to the fact that they all related to the movement of temporary to permanent car storage. However, the applications would all be voted upon separately and would be minuted as such.

The Chairman of the Committee also proposed that in accordance with paragraph 7.13.4 of the Constitution the total time allowed for speaking should be extended from 5 minutes to 10 minutes for each party due to the fact that all three applications were being considered together. The Committee agreed to this proposal.

The Planning Officer in introducing the report stated that following an Article 25 Direction from the Secretary of State, the Council had been directed to refer the application for possible determination to the Secretary of State should the Committee resolution be one of approval. If the Committee were minded to refuse the application the decision notice could be issued without referral. Greenham Parish Council had been the third party objector who had formally requested the call in and a copy of their letter of 14^th January 2011 was attached as an appendix to the Update Sheet.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Tony Forward,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(1)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was good friends with Councillor Julian Swift-Hook who had campaigned against the applications. However, he had not predetermined the applications and would make a decision based on the evidence presented at the meeting. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Gordon Lundie declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the Executive Member for Culture and Leisure. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she had been lobbied on the applications. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Sarah Clarke declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors was known to her. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined that this would not preclude her from providing legal advice to the Committee on the matter).

A motion to support the Officer’s recommendation of refusal for application number 10/02005/COMIND was proposed by Councillor Brian Bedwell and seconded by Councillor Royce Longton. The motion was carried by 10 votes to 2. Councillor Anthony Stansfeld asked for his vote not to support the motion to be recorded.

The District Planning Committee resolved to REFUSE the planning application as submitted for the following reason:

The GAMA site comprises a Scheduled Monument of national significance in relation to the Cold War era. It is also located adjacent to the Greenham and Crookham Commons which is a substantial countryside and open recreational asset for the District and its population. The open storage of cars on site C on a permanent basis would not only be  harmful to the understanding and visual setting of the monument, to its overall serious detriment, but also to the setting of the adjacent Common and its users again to the detriment of the overall enjoyment of that countryside asset. Accordingly the application is clearly contrary to the advice in PPS5, policy ENV38 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and policy BE6 in the South East Plan 2009, and so should be rejected.  

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was good friends with Councillor Julian Swift-Hook who had campaigned against the applications. However, he had not predetermined the applications and would make a decision based on the evidence presented at the meeting. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Gordon Lundie declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the Executive Member for Culture and Leisure. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she had been lobbied on the applications. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Sarah Clarke declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors was known to her. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined that this would not preclude her from providing legal advice to the Committee on the matter).

A motion to support the Officer’s recommendation of refusal for application number 10/02006/COMIND was proposed by Councillor Brian Bedwell and seconded by Councillor Royce Longton. The motion was carried by 10 votes to 2. Councillor Anthony Stansfeld asked for his vote not to support the motion to be recorded.

The District Planning Committee resolved to REFUSE the planning application as submitted for the following reason:

The GAMA site comprises a Scheduled Monument of national significance in relation to the Cold War era. It is also located adjacent to the Greenham and Crookham Commons which is a substantial countryside and open recreational asset for the District and its population. The open storage of cars on site S on a permanent basis would not only be  harmful to the understanding and visual setting of the monument, to its overall serious detriment, but also to the setting of the adjacent Common and its users again to the detriment of the overall enjoyment of that countryside asset. Accordingly the application is clearly contrary to the advice in PPS5, policy ENV38 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and policy BE6 in the South East Plan 2009, and so should be rejected.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 10/02090/FULD in respect of the replacement of the existing barn with a barn-style dwelling and conversion of existing traditional brick and timer cart house to provide ancillary accommodation. Demolition of remaining barns and outbuilding.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Robert Walton, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had wanted to amend the description of the application but had not done so as this would have required further consultation.

Mr. Walton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr. Walton thanked the Committee for attending the site visit;

·                    Mr. Walton confirmed that he had lived in Beech Hill for 20 years and ran and owned Trunkwell House. He had also had a public house in the area in the past and the village was therefore important to him;

·                    Mr. Walton stated that he had bought the farm in 2007 within the intention of living and retiring in it;

·                    The site had been purchased from THRIVE who were a charity that worked with children in horticulture. Mr. Walton had worked closely with THRIVE and confirmed that they were supportive of the application;

·                    Many of the outbuildings were derelict and a number of rats could often be seen in the gardens;

·                    The current application had arisen following a site visit from the Planning Officer who had advised that the cart shed should be retained and that the American barn should be redeveloped;

·                    The proposed development would not result in any additional dwellings/buildings on the site;

·                    The proposed application would tidy up what was a current blot on the landscape and the nearest footpath was at least 500m away and was therefore not close.

Members queried whether the barn which it was proposed to demolish had been used as a residential premises. Mr. Walton stated that there were three old barns on the site. The barn which had been used for residential purposes had been demolished in 1970 and the American barn had then been erected on the same site. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was no evidence of residential use of any of the barns/outbuildings.

Councillor Mollie Lock, as Ward Member, advised that the site had had planning permission an extant planning permission for the replacement of the existing farmhouse and the demolition of farm buildings to the east of the access road. The current application was to demolish all disused buildings apart from the cart shed. This would be used as ancillary accommodation and would be linked to the new barn type building. Councillor Lock felt that this application would enhance what could be considered as a dangerous site. The applicant was the owner of nearby Trunkwell House and he wanted to live and retire close to the area. The Parish Council had raised no objections and indeed supported the proposal.

Councillor Lock referred to paragraphs 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 of the report in respect of sustainability where it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(4)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 10/01948/HOUSE in respect of the conversion and extension of a garage to provide living accommodation.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Caspar Williams and Mr. Richard New, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr. Williams in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The principle part of the proposed accommodation was for a home/office use as both Mr. & Mrs. Williams were self employed;

·                    Inkpen did not have a large settlement boundary but was located in a settled area;

·                    Although the proposal represented a 167% increase on the original dwelling Mr. Williams felt that policies were far from clear and he had examples of planning decisions made on appeal which were over the 100% mark;

·                    The proposed extension was well designed and Mr. Williams had no clear understanding of why it would have a negative impact on the local countryside;

·                    There were other examples of similar extensions in the local area;

·                    Mr. Williams stated that the original house had been quite small and he felt that the proposed extension would fit in with the surrounding area without contravening planning policies;

In response to a query the Planning Officer clarified that although the increase in footprint was limited the volume would increase considerably. The double garage was currently 52 square metres with a proposed increase of 86 square metres. Overall this would result in an increase on the whole plot of 167% in volume from the original dwelling. The floor area was primarily focused on in planning policy but the volume would also come into play.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld stated that if the current dwelling was demolished the Council would likely give permission for a larger property on the site. Councillor Stansfeld could recall a number of instances where this had happened in Inkpen. Any new application for a replacement dwelling would take into account permitted development rights and incorporate that into any planning permission.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, as Ward Member, noted Planning Policy ENV.24 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan, which was the key development plan policy for establishing the principle of development. It stated that the extension of existing dwellings in the countryside would be permitted subject to certain criteria. One of these criteria was that the proposed development would not result in an extended dwelling disproportionate in size to the original. Councillor Stansfeld was of the opinion that the proposed extension to a modern house would not be disproportionate to the size of the plot. The site was well screened and the proposed development had the support of the Parish Council. Councillor Stansfeld therefore felt that this proposal would not harm the character of the area and should therefore be supported.

In considering the above application Members queried whether the approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent. The Planning Officer confirmed that it would set a precedent. West Berkshire had a significant number of houses within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(5)