Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 20 March 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 20^th March 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

Page 7, Questions from Members, First Sentence to read – ‘Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that the application was in the name of Springs Farm Limited however, according to his research no company under this name existed at Companies House in England and Wales’.

Page 20, Member Questions to Ward Members should be amended to read – ‘Members Questions to Officers’.

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 Quentin Webb declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) but reported that, as his interest was a personal interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Quentin Webb declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied on the item and had met with the applicants. 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(1)) concerning Planning Application No. 19/00221/FULD in respect of the demolition of Glenvale Garden Centre and replacement with one dwelling, retaining the existing entrance onto Hungerford Lane.

Sarah Melton introduced the item and noted that the site was located in the AONB and outside of a defined settlement boundary and as such it was located within the open countryside. Policy ADPP1 stated that most development would be within or adjacent to the settlements included in the settlement hierarchy and the proposal site was neither within or adjacent to a settlement included within the hierarchy.

The proposed scheme did not achieve all of the criteria required by Policy C1 whereby residential development outside of a defined settlement boundary might be acceptable.

Policy ADPP5 allowed for a limited amount of infill development within the AONB. The proposed scheme did not constitute an infill development and the Inspector found the conflict with this policy in determining a previous appeal and the case officer had not be presented with any evidence which suggested that the Inspector was wrong to find conflict with policy ADPP5 nor had there been any material changes in policy that would make that finding invalid.

The report concluded that the principle of residential development on this site was wholly unacceptable and clearly contrary to policies ADPP1, ADPP5 and C1 and the Inspector’s decision was a material consideration in determining this application. It also did not constitute a sustainable form of development and the environmental impact would outweigh any minor economic or social benefit from the proposal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor John Brims, Parish Council representative, Mr Jim Forrester, objector, Helen and Duncan Varley, supporters, and Joe Atkinson, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr John Brims in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr Brims stated that Bradfield Parish Council supported the proposal and felt that the reasons for refusal were open to interpretation.

·                    He accepted that the proposed development would not respect the linear road frontage but he was of the opinion that there would be no detrimental effect on the AONB. There was a cluster of houses both close by and in the distance.

·                    Questions had been raised as to whether the site was acceptable as a development site. The applicants had lived in the area for many years and had run a small garden centre on the site. The Parish Council was usually against building homes in the AONB but it was felt that the proposed development would actually enhance the AONB.

·                    Questions had also been raised as to whether the development would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application No. 18/03268/FULD in respect of the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and garage and replacement with two semi-detached dwellings and also to lift and thin the crown of a TPO within the garden.

The Planning Officer stated that this application was for the construction of a pair of semi-detached properties over the footprint of the existing dwelling. It was noted that Clairewood was set back from the highway due to a long front garden. The proposal included the creation of a new vehicular access and parking area with both hard and soft landscaping at the front. The oak tree, protected by a Tree Preservation Order, would be lifted and thinned as part of the proposal and would be entirely located within the garden space for Plot 1.

The proposed dwellings would be two storey, 5 bed dwellings. The front elevation would be have two bay windows with gable ends that would be oak framed. Windows on the rear elevation would be larger to allow for daylight to enter the dwellings. Officers had had concerns about the height and building line and subsequently amended plans had been received to show an alteration to the room form alongside setting back the dwellings in line with the established building line and additional landscaping within the front garden.

The site was within the Settlement Boundary and was within the AONB but it was felt that the principle of development was acceptable. Concerns had been raised by neighbours in respect of overlooking from the second floor windows in the side elevation of both dwellings. However, these would be obscure glazed and the Planning Officer felt that they would not be overbearing. The parking allocation complied with new residential parking standards and Highways had raised no objections.

The Update Report set out the Parish Council’s response to the amended plans and the fact that two further letters of objection had been received. It was noted that there had been no reported accidents in the vicinity of this site over the last five years. The Officer recommendation was therefore for approval of the application.

The Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Graham Pask, advised that the Chair of the Parish Council had thought that she had been registered to speak on this application. He therefore proposed to suspend Standing Orders to allow Mrs Ruth Cottingham to speak with the normal five minute time limit to apply.  This was agreed by the Committee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Ruth Cottingham, Parish Council representative, Mr Phil Stride, objector, and Mr Roger Scully, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Representation:

Mrs Ruth Cottingham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Mrs Cottingham stated that the Parish Council objected to this application as it was felt to be over ambitious and out of keeping with the immediate neighbourhood. The Village Design Statement discouraged the building of three storey dwellings as being out of keeping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.(2)