Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 25 July 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

 Application No & Parish Council: 17/03004/OUTMAJ, Land of South John’s Church of England School, Mortimer Common, Reading, Page 25, penultimate paragraph: Councillor Graham Bridgman requested that the paragraph be amended to read as follows: Councillor Bridgman referred to the local referendum regarding the adoption of the NDP and clarified that there had been a 50.1% turnout and an 88.88% vote in favour of the NDP.

Page 26, Ward Member Representation, first bullet point, second sentence: Councillor Bridgman requested that the sentence be amended to read as follows: Just over 50% of the community had turned out to vote regarding the NDP and 88.8%  of them had voted in favour of its adoption.

Page 26, Ward Member Representation, final bullet point, second sentence: Councillor Bridgman requested that the sentence be amended to read as follows: Councillor Bridgman stated that there were residents who would preferably not see the development permitted in Mortimer, however it was a service village and the 44 affordable housing units would be of great benefit to the area.

Page 23, Member Questions to Objectors, final sentence: The Chairman clarified that he had asked Mr Marsh if he felt like he was part of a small minority opposing the site, rather than Mr Whitaker as stated in the minutes.

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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01516/HOUSE in respect of the erection of a garden room with quiet room and WC/shower to the rear of the existing dwelling.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Mrs Tracey Godsmark, Mr Clive Sturgess and Mr David Sheppard, objectors and Mr Shinkwin, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Bob Dray introduced the report to Members of the Committee, which recommended conditional approval, and ran through the key points. He highlighted the previous appeal decision that had been dismissed for a similar proposal on the site, and a copy of which was included within the update report.

Objector Representations

Mrs Godsmark, Mr Sturgess and Mr Sheppard in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs Godsmark stated that she had lived with her husband in Ashampstead for 34 years. She believed the dwelling (Grimms Dyke) as it stood was already overbearing.

·         Mrs Godsmark questioned how planning regulations could ensure that there was adequate landscaping on the site.

·         There was concern that the proposed outbuilding could be used for residential purposes in the future.

·         The volume of the proposal was 29% larger than the proposal submitted in 2016, which had subsequently been refused at appeal.

·         Mrs Godsmark stated that it would be easy for the outbuilding to be served by a separate driveway. She stressed that Members should not be misled in to thinking the dwelling would not be used in this way.

·         Mr Sturgess lived at Foxborough, which was adjacent to Grimms Dyke.

·         This was the fifth application that had been submitted for the location in three years. He was surprised that the application was being considered as a similar application had been refused at appeal in 2016.

·         The proposed outbuilding would incorporate a quiet room and this had immediately set alarm bells ringing for Mr Sturgess. He was aware that the applicant was involved with teaching meditation and in his view the proposal would be used for this purpose.

·         The original application had been submitted with a view to providing accommodation for the applicant’s son and the use had changed with each application that had been submitted.

·         Mr Sturgess felt that it was strange that the proposal incorporated a garden room despite it not benefiting from views of the garden.

·         The site which stood within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was already overdeveloped in Mr Sturgess’s view. The house was overbearing and was out of keeping with the local landscape and architecture.

·         Tree and shrubs had recently been removed from the site by the applicant, which had come as a shock to residents living nearby.

·         Councillor Alan Law (Ward Member) had been asked to refer the application to the Eastern Area Planning Committee for consideration.

·         Mr Sturgess felt that a professional landscaping scheme should be approved by the West Berkshire Council Planning Department before the application was considered.

Questions to Objectors from Members

Councillor Emma Webster suggested that the objectors read conditions four and seven in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.(1)