To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Calcot Centre, Highview (off Royal Avenue), Calcot

Contact: Stephen Chard / Charlene Hurd / Jessica Bailiss 

Items
No. Item

49.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 193 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 17th January 2018.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

50.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Richard Crumly declared an interest in Agenda Item(s) 1 & 3, and reported that, as his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

51.

Schedule of Planning Applications

(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.)

51.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 17/03079/COMIND - Land Between Francis Baily and Kennet Schools and Land Adjacent To Dunstan Park, Thatcham, pdf icon PDF 168 KB

Proposal:

The flood alleviation scheme comprises a series of strategically located bunds (earth embankments) in Dunstan Green and Siege Cross play area varying in height from 0.4m to 1m. A shallow swale approximately 440m long is proposed along the perimeter of the Kennet School playing fields to collect and convey water into storage basins in Siege Cross play area, allowing the water to drain at a controlled rate into the existing surface water sewer system. The scheme also includes re-profiling a section of Harts Hill Road to divert flood water off the carriageway and into Dunstan Green.

Location:

Land Between Francis Baily and Kennet Schools and Land Adjacent To Dunstan Park, Thatcham, Berkshire

Applicant:

West Berkshire Council

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION 

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Richard Crumly declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), by the virtue of the fact that he was present at that Thatcham Town Council meeting when the matter was considered. He reported that, he remained impartial and would consider the matter afresh this evening; therefore, as his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but 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 17/03079/COMIND in respect of a flood alleviation scheme which comprised a series of strategically located bunds (earth embankments) in Dunstan Green and Siege Cross play area varying in height from 0.4m to 1m. The proposed works would also entail the erection of a 1 metre bund alongside the access track within allotments to the east of Dunstan Green and a section of bund on allotment land on the west of the allotment site. A bund of heights between 50cm and 80cm was proposed on land to the north west of Kennet School sports pitches with a shallow swale approximately 440m long along the perimeter of the Kennet School sports pitches to collect and convey water into storage basins with a 50cm depth in Siege Cross play area, allowing the water to drain at a controlled rate into the existing surface water sewer system. The scheme also included re-profiling a section of Harts Hill Road and excavation of a 50cm depth swale to divert water off the carriageway and into Dunstan Green.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Liz Wood, objector, Mr Iain Dunn (Thatcham Flood Forum), supporter, and Mr Brian Cafferkey  and Mrs Liz Allen, agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ms Liz Wood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         At the site meeting Officers had stated that the bund was outside the perimeter fence of the allotments but it was inside so that was a mistake;

·         The allotments near Dunstan Green had not been included in any written statements and no notices had been displayed on the allotments;

·         The use of the land was statutory allotment land and therefore the proper consultation had not been undertaken;

·         Ms Wood referred to the swept path analysis and amended bund drawing showing the allotment site that was attached to the Update Sheet. She stated that this had been undertaken using a Skoda car which was not a large car. Many people who used the allotments needed access with a car and a trailer and there would not be sufficient space to allow that access;

·         Ms Wood referred to a bund which had originally been included in the plans and then had been removed. It was then put back in just five days before the meeting but had been reduced in size. She queried why that had happened and was concerned that the authority said that it could predict where the water would flow but plans kept on changing;

·         Ms Wood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.(1)

51.(2)

Application No. & Parish: 17/02578/RESMAJ - Firlands Farm, Hollybush Lane, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 3JN pdf icon PDF 236 KB

Proposal:

Approval of reserved matters following outline permission 14/01730/OUTMAJ (Appeal reference APP/W0340/A/2228089)-Erection of 90 dwellings with vehicular access to Hollybush Lane and associated public open space, landscaping and drainage work. Matters seeking consent: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.

Location:

Firlands Farm, Hollybush Lane, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 3JN

Applicant:

HDD Burghfield Common Ltd

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to APPROVE THE RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION subject to conditions

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02578/RESMAJ in respect of Approval of reserved matters following outline permission 14/01730/OUTMAJ (Appeal reference APP/W0340/A/2228089) - Erection of 90 dwellings with vehicular access to Hollybush Lane and associated public open space, landscaping and drainage work. Matters seeking consent: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Rob Collett, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Rob Collett in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Thank you for the positive recommendation and for attending the site visit.

·                    Officers produced a comprehensive report regarding outline matters relating to a 90 dwelling development in Burghfield - offering 35 Affordable Housing Units.

·                    Concerns had been addressed regarding the movement of material - resources would remain onsite and allocated for other features of the development.

·                    The site layout was informal in nature and varied in size which was appropriate for the local character of the area.

·                    Landscaping plans would complement the overall appearance of the development and provide public, recreational space.

Councillor Graham Bridgman identified that the current plan did not specify the size and style of all 90 dwellings. He noted that [some of] the garden sizes were undesirably small and asked whether the number of properties could be adjusted to accommodate reasonable garden sizes throughout the development. Mr Collect acknowledged the comments and reminded the Committee that the development included open, public space along with private gardens which, he felt, provided sufficient amenities and supported good living standards.

In response to questions asked by the Committee Mr Collett advised that the existing entrance to Firlands Farm would remain accessible. In addition, the proposed plans outlined a second access route, through the main development, as an option. The roads would be built to an adoptable standard,not including the driveways.

Councillor Keith Chopping, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He found the proposal to be acceptable although he recognised that the previous application was overturned at appeal.

·                    The dwellings would be set back from the main road and sufficiently masked by landscaping and tree lines.

·                    The proposed materials were sufficient for the type of development although the overall design was unimaginative.

·                    The scheme offered a mix of dwellings [size and style] plus 35 Affordable Housing units.

·                    Neither Parish Councils raised objections against the application. The objections raised by Burghfield Parish Council should be considered with caution due to the indirect impact and distance from the site.

·                    He was disappointed with the size of the gardens [in some cases] but did not feel that it was sufficient reason to warrant refusal.

·                    There were insufficient visitor]parking spaces available within the development area which could result in disruption.

Councillor Bridgman challenged Officers to expand on the comment in section 6.9.3 of the report which stated that a ‘not insignificant number [of gardens] fall short’ of theexpected minimum size. David Pearson could not be sure how many fell outside the, minimum, expected size and confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.(2)

51.(3)

Application No. & Parish: 17/03304/FULD - Garden land to the rear of 17 Church Gate, Thatcham, RG19 3PN pdf icon PDF 164 KB

Proposal:

Erection of a new dwelling

Location:

garden land to the rear of 17 Church Gate, Thatcham, RG19 3PN

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs James

Recommendation:

to DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to  APPROVE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Richard Crumly declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), by the virtue of the fact that he was present at that Thatcham Town Council meeting when the matter was considered. He reported that, he remained impartial and would consider the matter afresh this evening; therefore, as his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but 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(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/03304/FULD in respect of the erection of a new dwelling.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Steven Cottrell, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

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

·                     Mr. Cottrell stated that the siting and position of the proposed dwelling did not have an impact on the Conservation Area as it would not be visible from the road;

·                     There had been a number of objections raised by neighbours some of whom seemed to have submitted several objections;

·                     The appeal decision for application 15/02052/FUL stated that the two storey development proposed in that application would be out of keeping but would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions in neighbouring properties. This proposal had been reduced to a single storey bungalow under the current application and therefore the impact would be reduced;

·                     The proposed dwelling was in a sustainable location and would cause no significant harm and Mr. Cottrell could see no planning reason to refuse the application.

Councillor Richard Crumly referred to the location plan where it was noted to the West was a dwelling known as The Grange and to the east was a number of executive homes. He asked how many executive homes there were. Mr. Cottrell could not recall the exact number but there were quite a few 4 and 5 bedroom homes.

Councillors Marigold Jacques and Richard Crumly, as Ward Members, raised the following points:

·                    Councillor Marigold Jacques stated that the development site was in a Conservation Area which had led to a number of objections from local residents. However, not all of the site was in the Conservation Area;

·                    In submitting this application the applicant had tried to address the issues raised by the Inspector in relation to the previous application;

·                    She felt that the proposed landscaping would soften the impact on neighbouring properties, the bin store could be accommodated at the end of the drive and no windows would overlook neighbouring properties;

·                    She felt that bungalows were in short supply and a much-needed form of development in Thatcham;

·                    Councillor Richard Crumly confirmed that most of the dwelling would be in the Conservation Area. However, it had been reduced in size to a bungalow and in any event the site was surrounded by dwellings itself;

·                    The applicants had dealt with the issues raised by the Inspector in relation to the previous application and that would strengthen their hand if this application went to appeal.

Councillor Graham Bridgman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.(3)

51.(4)

Application No. & Parish: 17/03374/FULD - Knappswood Farm, Pangbourne Road, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8LN pdf icon PDF 200 KB

Proposal:

Demolition of existing house containing 3 units and erection of 2 dwellings.

Location:

Knappswood Farm, Pangbourne Road, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8LN

Applicant:

Mr John Wakefield

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions (Section 8.1).

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 17/03374/FULD in respect of Demolition of existing house containing 3 units and erection of 2 dwellings.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Geoff Couchman, Parish Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Geoff Couchman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council was concerned about the ‘tandem’ approach towards this development and would not support the application.

·                    Current residents had to be rehoused whilst the development was underway or find an alternative home altogether.

·                    Access and egress from the site was problematic. He disagreed with the Officer’s report which stated that there would be a slight increase in traffic as a result of the development.

·                    The number of objection letters received highlighted the level of concerns up to ¾ miles away from the site.

·                    There was likely to be an increase in traffic from online shopping deliveries as a result of the increased number of properties onsite.

·                    There had been a recent incident whereby a white van overturned as a result of driving too fast along Pangbourne Road. Gritting along Pangbourne Road was paid for by the Parish Council and, if stopped, the conditions would worsen and could lead to more incidents along the road which experienced pluvial flooding.

In response to questions asked by the committee, Councillor Couchman stated that the properties would introduce an additional bedroom and it was not unreasonable to assume that this would include an additional vehicle per property. 

Councillor Pamela Bale asked how the Highways Department calculated vehicle movements. Gareth Dowding advised that they used TRICS indicators based on similar properties and used this benchmark against the current property to calculate differences. The Committee heard that the current property would entail 12/14 vehicle movements and that the TRICS indicators suggested that the proposed properties would entail the same number. He concluded that because there would be no change in the volume of traffic it was regrettable that there was very little they could do to seek an improvement to visibility at the entrance/exit of the site. 

Gareth Dowding advised that standard road markings might be an option but the proposal would not generate extra traffic.

Councillor Bale asked how much weight Officers had given towards the suggestion that this proposal was a ‘tandem’ build. David Pearson advised that Officers considered planning policy (including the Design Statement) but the previous application was considered ‘acceptable’ so this factored into their overall consideration.

Councillor Bridgman suggested that the proposal should not be accepted just because it did not make the situation any worse. He asked Officers to state the planning policy considerations to Members. David Pearson advised that planning policy was not the reference point in this case but that Officers looked towards Case Law to gauge the direction that an appeal might take. Members heard that it was necessary to consider the level of harm as a result of the development. In considering this application, Officers concluded that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.(4)

52.

Appeal Decisions relating to Eastern Area Planning pdf icon PDF 34 KB

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

Minutes:

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.