Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 4^th July 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4^th July 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Item 15 (1) – 18/00628/FULD – Midgham Cottage, Station Road, Woolhampton – Page 9: Councillor Graham Bridgman highlighted the discussion regarding a request for a SuDs informative. Councillor Bridgman stated that he could not see this included within the minutes. Councillor Alan Law confirmed that SuDS were covered under (i) and (k) of condition 8 on page 12 of the minutes.

Councillor Bridgman requested that in future the minutes be divided into headed sections to reflect the order of the meeting.

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.

Councillor Graham Bridgman declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other 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 18/00833/FULD in respect of the demolition of a garage and the erection of a convenience store with 4 x apartments above and erect 4 dwellings.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution,
Ms Ruth Cottingham, Parish Council representative, Mr Ian Whipp and Mr Chris Genge, objectors, and Mr Philip Holdcroft, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

David Pearson introduced the report to Members of the Committee which was recommended for conditional approval and ran through the key points. David Pearson reported that since the report had been written Officers had heard from the viability assessor and it had been confirmed that the site could deliver 20% affordable housing.

David Pearson referred Members to the update sheet where there was an updated recommendation for approval and a recommendation for refusal if a S106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing was not completed within the specified time.

Parish Council Representation

Ms Cottingham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Hermitage Parish Council had a number of concerns. First the proposed Cooperative (Co-op) convenience store was out of keeping with the area and would dominate the street scene.

·         Hermitage was considered to be a dark village at night and there was concern that the store would light up the road.

·         Issues of traffic and highway safety on this stretch of road were raised with the Parish Council on a regular basis.

·         Shoppers would be unlikely to walk to the store on foot as they would have to carry heavy shopping bags. It was therefore anticipated that car usage would be high. Those on foot would have to wait long periods of time in order to cross the busy B4009. Those wishing to travel to the shop by bus would have to wait up to two hours for a service.

·         Whilst consulting on the parish plan, it had been discovered that young people had concerns about crossing the road in Hermitage. The pedestrian crossing near Priors Court Road and the mini roundabout were not considered to be safe.

·         The development would put the junction with Priors Court Road under increased pressure.

·         There had been a number of near misses involving vehicles trying to leave Station Road.

·         Deliveries to the store between 6am and 10pm plus refuse collections, would cause disturbance to residents living nearby, particularly those living in Charlotte’s Close.

·         There would be consequences if the application was approved. If the store was successful then the village would lose the Post Office and the repeat prescription service it offered.

·         Only three quarters of the mini roundabout at the junction with Priors Court Road and Station Road fell within the parish of Hermitage. The other quarter fell within the Parish of Chieveley. Chieveley Parish Council had also stated concerns about traffic safety in this area.

·         Chieveley Parish Council was not opposed to the application however wanted to see a traffic plan enforced.

·         If the application was approved, Ms Cottingham stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.(1)

(Councillor Graham Bridgman declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he supported the development and adoption of the Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Development Plan because he thought that Neighbourhood Development Plans were a good idea and to be encouraged.  At various times in the process he was lobbied by both those in favour of the NDP and those against it.  He also was a named signatory to, and contributor (to the tune of £8.40) to the cost of, a leaflet promoting a “Yes” vote in the NDP referendum. In the same way that councillors voting in favour of the Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (including himself), had accepted the principle of development in respect of each of the DPD sites, he had accepted the principle of the development.  However, in the same way that such acceptance did not preclude such a councillor from coming to an outline or full application for a DPD site with an open mind, Councillor Bridgeman came to this application with an open mind.

Councillor Bridgman had taken advice from the Monitoring Officer, and was content that there was no interest that precluded him from taking part in the debate and voting.As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or 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(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03004/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application comprising two parts: Part a) The erection of 110 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space and associated landscaping with all matters reserved other than access and layout; Part b) The erection of a 3FE Infant School and 900sq m GP surgery (Use Class D1) with shared parking area with all matters reserved other than access.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Pat Wingfield, Parish Council representative, Mr Peter Marsh and Mr Colin Whitaker , objectors, and Katherine Miles, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Simon Till introduced the report to Members of the Committee which was recommended for approval subject to conditions and ran through the key points. The proposal offered 44 affordable housing units, which met the 40% stated in West Berkshire Council’s Core Strategy. There was an addendum to the report for the item, which included a paragraph that should have appeared in the report concerning the impact on the amenity of existing residential occupants. Simon Till clarified that the proposed dwellings would be at least 50m from existing dwellings. The proposed dwellings would also be at least 21 metres from dwellings proposed as part of a separate development.

Simon Till added that there were an updated list of conditions included within the update report along with an updated reason for refusal and clarification on the officer’s recommendation.

Parish Council Representation

Mr Pat Wingield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Generally he agreed with the recommendation set out within the report and the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.