Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 30 August 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 August 2016 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Item 11 (1) – 16/01034/OUTMAJ – Land opposite Hall Place Farm Stables, Sulham Hill

Page five of the minutes, penultimate paragraph, first sentence:

In summary Bryan Lyttle advised Members that there were a substantial number of other appeals coming forward and based on the first two days of the Examination where the OAN was being questioned, and also as a result of the Firland’s appeal decision in which the Inspector agreed with the proposals there that a figure of 833 dwellings per annum should be used, it could be considered that all the site allocations in the HSA DPD were at risk from being excluded by a Planning Inspector and therefore the figure would go down to between 5.7 and 4.4 years.

Page eleven of the minutes, first paragraph, second sentence:

It was a different type of allocation but he agreed that the principle was not the same.

Page thirteen of the minutes, first paragraph, final sentence:

However, if the Committee refused planning permission, an appeal could be lodged by the applicant. If planning permission was granted, then a Judicial Review could be requested by the objectors. The question was what would be best for the Council.

Item 11 (4) – 16/00971/OUTD – Delamere Stables, Baydon Road, Lambourn

The declaration of interest for Councillor Jeff Beck was removed as this did not apply to this planning application.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Anthony Pick and Jeff Beck declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, a registerable interest or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Paul Bryant and Jeff Beck declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, a registerable interest or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. Councillors Beck and Pick had been present when this item was discussed, but made it clear that they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial, registerable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Jeff Beck advised that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1)).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6(3)) concerning Planning Application 16/00657/FULEXT in respect of the proposed conversion of extant permission of B1(a) office use to 22 dwellings, 11 of which were to be affordable, associated access and parking.

The Planning Officer confirmed that this application had previously been considered at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting on 10^th August 2016. The item had also been deferred from the District Planning Committee meeting on 30^th August 2016 due to lack of time to consider the application.

Policy CS9 in the Core Strategy 2006 to 2026 was an employment protection designation on the land in question. This meant that essentially non-employment generating developments, such as housing, would not be permitted, unless exceptional circumstances pertained. In this application, housing was being promoted by the Developer. Accordingly the application, if approved, would be contrary to policy CS9 and so would comprise a departure from the Development Plan. In this particular case, both officers and the Western Area Planning Committee were recommending to the District Planning Committee, that the application be approved because, within the application, whilst it was duly acknowledged that an approval would mean the loss of employment land in the future, and so be contrary to policy CS9, the planning gain of the additional 11 affordable units [50% rate rather than  the normal 30% rate advised in policy CS6] was sufficient to set aside the underlying policy objection and loss of employment land.

The application site was currently vacant land adjacent to an existing housing development of 37 dwellings, now completed and occupied, to the south. The site abutted Mill Lane to the north and would derive access from that route. It was proposed to erect 22 dwellings on the site up to three storeys in height, 11 of which were to be affordable [50%]. It would be associated with 44 parking spaces, [two per unit] with three visitor spaces adjoining the principal roadway into the site. The buildings would be relatively contemporary in design as the elevations indicated. No external open space was to be provided, but bin stores and cycle stores would be laid out on the site. All the dwellings in addition, would be two bedroomed. All would be flats apart from one 2 bed townhouse. It was noted that if this application was approved this would mean that the extant permission for offices would not be constructed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 16/00971/OUTD in respect of an outline application for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three dwellings. Matters to be considered: access and layout.

The Planning Officer, Derek Carnegie, confirmed that this application had previously been considered at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting on 20^th July 2016.

The site was located outside of a settlement boundary as defined by the Local Plan Proposals map and was therefore located in open countryside. The Council was able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply in accordance with paragraphs 47-49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Accordingly the relevant policies relating to the supply of housing were deemed to be up to date and could be given full weight. The West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, sought to direct new development in accordance with the settlement pattern with most development taking place within settlements defined within the hierarchy as directed by Area Delivery Plan Policy 1 (ADPP1). The explanatory text to Policy HSG.1 West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007 stated that outside settlement boundaries, development would only be acceptable in exceptional circumstances. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy stated that new homes would be primarily developed on: suitable previously developed land within boundaries, other suitable land within settlements, strategic sites and broad locations identified on the Core Strategy Key Diagram and land allocated through the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD). The Proposed Submission Version of the HSA DPD had been submitted for examination (commencing June 2016).  It was therefore at an advanced stage of preparation. Policy C1 of the draft West Berkshire Council Proposed Submission HSA DPD stated that there was a presumption against new residential development outside of settlement boundaries, exceptions to this were limited to rural exception housing schemes, conversion of redundant buildings, housing to accommodate rural workers and extensions to or replacement of existing residential units. It was noted the proposed site was still outside of the revised settlement boundaries as a result of housing allocations.

The proposed three dwellings did not meet with these criteria and as such their proposal was not in conformity with the current statutory development plan which comprised policies in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 – 2026, July 2012, those saved policies within the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007 and the Proposed HSA DPD.

In summary, Mr Carnegie gave the Officer view that the decision of the Western Area Planning Committee to grant conditional planning permission would comprise a departure from current West Berkshire Council Planning Policy. It was important that development in the district was plan led.

Councillor Alan Law referred to the conclusion of the District Planning Committee report and specifically the view described of the Western Area Planning Committee that the application should be approved given the benefits it would provide. He queried these benefits and the exceptional grounds for approval by the Western Area Planning Committee contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(2)

(Councillor Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was acquainted with the owner of the property next door to the application site. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial, registerable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).  

(Councillor Paul Bryant advised that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3)).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application No. 16/01603/FULMAJ in respect of the replacement of redundant barns with a single dwelling, redevelopment of an existing barn to provide garaging, associated landscaping, provision of a community parking area and additional wider landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to an AONB.

The Planning Officer confirmed that this application had previously been considered at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting on 31^st August 2016.

The site was located outside of any defined settlement boundary and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The village of Winterbourne did not have a settlement boundary as defined by Policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 and as such the application site fell within the open countryside as identified within Policy ADPP1 of the Core Strategy where ‘only appropriate limited development in the countryside will be allowed, focussed on the addressing identified needs and maintaining a strong rural economy’. Policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD), (November 2015) also identified settlements where there would be a presumption in favour of development and redevelopment within the settlement boundaries. Winterbourne was again not identified as a settlement where such proposals would be considered. The DPD went on to state that exceptions to this were limited to rural exception housing schemes, conversion of redundant buildings, housing to accommodate rural workers and extension to or replacement of existing residential units. This proposal however did not meet any of these specific criteria. The support text to Policy C1 did allow for limited infill In settlements in the countryside with no defined settlement boundary, subject to:

i.        It being within a closely knit cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings adjacent to, or fronting an existing highway; and

ii.       The scale of development consisted of infilling a small undeveloped plot commensurate with the scale and character of existing dwellings within an otherwise built up frontage; and

iii.      It did not extend the existing frontage; and

iv.      The plot size and spacing between dwellings was similar to adjacent properties and respected the rural character and street scene of the locality.

On this basis, whilst the application site was adjacent to a group of 10 or more dwellings, it could not be considered as a closely knit cluster. Winterbourne Farm was itself not reflective of the main pattern of development within Winterbourne. The farmhouse was set on a stand alone, substantial site and clearly defined the end of the pattern of residential development. The site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(3)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application Nos. 16/01675/HOUSE and 16/01676/LBC2 in respect of the erection of a two storey extension and single storey glazed link.

The Planning Officer, Derek Carnegie, confirmed that this application had previously been considered at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting on 31^st August 2016.

The site was located within Upper Lambourn, outside of any defined settlement boundary and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The application site fell within the open countryside as identified within Area Delivery Plan Policy 1 (ADPP1) of the Core Strategy where ‘only appropriate limited development in the countryside will be allowed, focussed on addressing identified needs and maintaining a strong rural economy’. Policy ENV.24 of the Local Plan Saved Policies allowed for the extension of houses in the countryside in principle subject to a range of criteria, primarily relating to design, harm to the character of the area and whether it would be disproportionate to the original dwelling.

Policy C6 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) was proposed to replace saved policy ENV.24. This policy also allowed for the extensions of houses in the countryside. There was a presumption in favour of proposals for the extension of existing permanent dwellings and would be permitted subject to scale in relation to the original dwelling, design and use of materials, and harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties. Of most relevance to this application was that it should have no adverse impact on the setting, the space occupied within the plot boundary, on local rural character, the historic interest of the building and its setting within the wider landscape.

It was considered that the impact of the proposed extension when taken with the existing building would result in a substantial dwelling on this plot, which would be inappropriate in this location. Whilst the plot size was relatively large, the proposed dwelling would dominate the residential curtilage. The original rear garden area would be lost to built development, with the front of the dwelling re-sited to the extension. The original listed farmhouse/farm yard layout would no longer be visible, which was considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of this Grade II Listed Building.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty had a high status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty, as set out in paragraph 115 of the NPPF. It was considered that the cumulative impact of the proposed extension, in conjunction with the existing dwelling and surrounding buildings on the site would introduce a significant amount of built form into this open, rural landscape which would have a detrimental impact in this location. It was considered that the proposal did not comply with relevant criteria of saved policy ENV24 or emerging policy C6 in this regard.

With regard to proportion and increases in size of extensions proposed in the countryside, the Replacement Dwellings and Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside SPG outlined the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(4)