Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 16 November 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2016 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Item 61 (1): 16/02313/HOUSE – 8 Oregon Avenue, Tilehurst – first bullet point, second sentence:

The guidance did not define a secondary window, but officers worked on the principle that these were additional windows to a room over and above the principal window.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

During the course of the debate, Councillor Keith Chopping declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Graham Bridgman and Keith Chopping declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as their interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Emma Webster commented that in relation to Agenda Item 4(2), she would be considering the matter with a fair and open mind, regardless of the debate held and decision taken on this item at the Eastern Area Planning Committee held on 24 August 2016.

(During the course of the debate, Councillor Keith Chopping declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he knew the Parish Council representative in a private capacity. As his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 16/02273/FULD in respect of an application seeking to erect a replacement dwelling and five no. dwellings and associated works; demolition of Class B buildings and extinguishment of lawful plant storage and distribution operations; removal of hardstanding.

As part of the Planning Officer, David Pearson’s introduction to the item he made reference to the emerging Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) Policy C1: Location of New Housing in the Countryside. This contained a presumption that development and redevelopment outside of established settlement boundaries be opposed unless it was demonstrated that the proposal complied with the limited exceptions identified in the policy. The entire application site was located outside of the defined settlement boundary. Exceptions 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.

Councillor Alan Law referred the Committee to paragraph 4.6 of the report where reference was made to the emerging HSA DPD and the fact that significant weight should be afforded to the document and its policies. Since the writing of the application report, the Planning Inspector’s report on the HSA DPD, following Public Examination, had been received. This detailed no substantial changes to the document and this included Policy C1: Location of New Housing in the Countryside. Councillor Law queried therefore whether Committee Members could give greater weight to the HSA DPD. The Planning Officer confirmed this point.

Councillor Law then turned to section 6.9 of the report which covered sustainable development as identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This noted that the application would only achieve short term economic benefits during the construction phase and Councillor Law added that due to the proposal to remove industrial buildings, the economic capability of the site would be reduced. The application, if approved, would also have a negative environmental impact due to increased car usage. Based on these points, Councillor Law queried whether a lack of sustainability should have been included as a proposed reason for refusing the planning application. The Planning Officer acknowledged this point and agreed that this should have been included as a proposed reason for refusal for Members’ consideration.

Councillor Graham Bridgman sought clarity on the point made in paragraph 7.1 of the report where reference was made to two areas which were currently immune from enforcement for their current uses. The Planning Officer confirmed that enforcement action could be taken for any non permitted use.

Councillor Bridgman queried the parking allocation detailed in the update report if permission was granted.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.(1)

(Councillor Graham Bridgman declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he had held discussions with objectors to the application. As his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Keith Chopping declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew the applicant’s agent in a professional capacity. As his interest was a personal or other registrable interest, and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Emma Webster commented that in relation to Agenda Item 4(2), she would be considering the matter with a fair and open mind, regardless of the debate held and decision taken on this item at the Eastern Area Planning Committee held on 24 August 2016.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 16/02600/FULEXT in respect of a Section 73 application to remove condition 17 of approved application 15/02667/FULEXT – erection of 17 dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and clearance of the site, alteration of the existing means of access off the street and associated landscape work.

The Planning Officer, Andy Heron, introduced the report and made reference to an appeal decision of the Planning Inspector on a site comparable with this application at Crookham House, Crookham Common. This appeal was allowed based on evidence that the development would be unviable if affordable housing was required. The Planning Officer felt that refusing this application to remove the affordable housing requirement would be difficult to defend at a potential appeal.

Councillor Bridgman sought to clarify that the only changes to the planning application report/paperwork approved on 24 August 2016, other than the inclusion of the reasoning for the applicant wanting to remove the affordable housing requirement, was the removal of Condition 17, the inclusion of the appeal decision referred to by the Planning Officer and an updated Highways comment. The Planning Officer confirmed this to be correct.

In terms of the appeal decision referred to, Councillor Bridgman pointed out that the Planning Committee, when it considered this application, had accepted the Officer view that affordable housing could not be insisted upon. However, this acceptance was subject to the inclusion of a suitable overage clause should ‘windfall’ profits materialise. Therefore the appeal decision related to the overage clause and not affordable housing.

David Pearson explained that the appeal decision made reference to the general principle of viability of affordable housing as well as specifically mentioning the overage clause.

Mr Pearson added that the Committee could overturn the Officer recommendation to allow the removal of the affordable housing condition, but robust reasons were required for doing so. If these were not provided then the Council might need to pay costs at an appeal.

Councillor Webster questioned the relevance of including the appeal decision as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.(2)

A date of 11 January 2017 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the next Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 18 January 2017.