Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 10 April 2019, 21 May 2019 and 5 June 2019.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 10 April 2019, 21 May 2019 and 5 June 2019 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment to the Minutes of the meeting on 5 June 2019:

Item 6(2) – 18/03287/FULD – land to the rear of 42-48 Long Lane, Tilehurst – Condition 5:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows/dormer windows/roof lights (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B or C of that Order shall be constructed on the north, south, west, and east elevations of each dwelling, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of an application made for that purpose.

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.

(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.)

Councillor Alan Law, Chairman of the Eastern Area Planning Committee, outlined, for the benefit of members of the public in attendance, the processes in place for determining planning applications and the workings of the Planning Committee as part of that.

The majority of planning applications (97%) were dealt with solely by Planning Officers under delegated powers, with only a small number of applications coming before Planning Committees. These were applications where the local Ward Member had requested the application be considered by Committee, generally because of a high degree of local interest. Another particular example were cases where Planning Officers had recommended approval of an application, but there were ten or more objections received.

Councillor Law then raised the important point that Committee Members would apply and consider exactly the same national and local planning policies as the Officers when considering each application.

The Committee could not make up, ignore or change policy at a meeting. Members considered and applied planning policies only. Other policies or laws such as Licensing or public nuisance were not planning considerations.

It was also the case that the Committee would not add more or less weight to a viewpoint simply because that viewpoint had a larger or smaller number of supporters or objectors, if the viewpoint was not relevant in planning policy terms.

Councillor Law then described the running order for the consideration of each item. This included clarification of the five minute speaking right for each category of speakers. At the conclusion of considerations for each planning application, a motion would be called for and seconded and a vote taken to either approve planning permission with conditions, refuse the application or, in some cases, defer the decision to a subsequent Planning Committee.

Finally, it was clarified that the items on this agenda would be taken in the following order: 1. Saffron House, Stanford Dingley; 2. The Swan at Streatley, High Street, Streatley. This was due to the greater level of public attendance for The Swan at Streatley and the expectation that it would require a lengthier debate.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/03400/FULD in respect of the proposed demolition of existing barn and its replacement with a new four bedroom dwelling with two cart sheds, and alterations to existing access detail on land adjacent to Saffron House, Stanford Dingley.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Shaun Tanner/Mr Daniel Kellett, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

Mr Kellett in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The principle of development had been established. This application sought approval of a variation to the extant planning consent for application 17/01051/FULD.

·                    These variations, if approved, would achieve improved visibility and sight lines in comparison to the extant scheme, improved access and it would simplify the look of the barn conversion to a more traditional appearance. Mr Kellett highlighted that smaller windows were proposed for the elevation facing the road. The increased ridge height would enhance the first floor space.

·                    No objections had been received from statutory consultees. It was supported by the Case Officer and Conservation Officer. The professional opinion was that the proposal was acceptable.

·                    The overall footprint of the building would only increase by 2% in comparison to the existing permission. The length and width would in fact reduce.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

Councillor Keith Woodhams queried whether it would be possible to salvage any of the original fabric of the barn, a point questioned in the update report. Mr Tanner considered this to be highly unlikely as the existing barn and its materials were in a poor condition.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Graham Pask, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points on behalf of Stanford Dingley Parish Council:

·                    This was a very sensitive site which was located on the main route through the village. It was the only remaining building with a connection to the tannery.

·                    The need for development had however been accepted, but the Parish was supportive of the extant permission as it would be a more sensitive design than the proposal.

·                    The Parish Council had the following particular concerns, which had been raised at the site visit:

·                    A Heritage Impact Assessment had not been provided which was a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The Local Authority was aware of the historical significance of the location within the conservation area. Paragraphs 189 and 190 of the NPPF placed a requirement on local planning authorities to protect such assets and request the completion of a Heritage Impact Assessment. A heritage asset should be conserved and where possible enhanced. The proposal also needed to accord with Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy. The Parish Council did not feel that enough had been done to adhere to policy requirements and greater weight should have been given to this in the Planning Officer’s report. The Parish Council view was that the application could not be determined until the Heritage Impact Assessment had been completed and submitted.

·                    The massing and height of the proposal. The proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.(1)

(Councillor Alan Law opened the item by explaining that he was both the Ward Member for The Swan Hotel application and also Chairman of the Committee. As such he had consulted the Council’s Legal Team and had received assurance that there was no conflict of interest in this case.

Councillor Law added that he had acted properly at all times in the run up to this Committee and kept an open mind on the issues before Members. However, he explained that he wanted to avoid the risk that as Chairman he might have to use a casting or deciding vote on this matter which was within his Ward. Councillor Law therefore decided that in the circumstances, he would stand own from the Chair for the hearing of this application).

As the Vice-Chairman had given his apologies for this meeting, it was necessary to appoint a Member to Chair the item. Councillor Alan Macro proposed Councillor Graham Pask, this was seconded by Councillor Peter Argyle and agreed by Members.

(Councillor Graham Pask in the Chair)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02975/FUL in respect of an application for planning permission for the formation of an overflow car parking area and associated landscaping at The Swan at Streatley.

Mr Matthew Shepherd, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report to Members and drew attention to the points raised in the update report.

Further earlier site history related to the proposed car park site had been found to be relevant and was presented in the update report. The planning applications in each of these cases had been refused due to the impact they would have on the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWD AONB) and the site’s location external to the settlement boundary.

The NWD AONB Board had lodged an objection to the application and commented that the proposed development did nothing to conserve or enhance the natural and scenic beauty of the AONB.

The Conservation Officer’s concerns in relation to the harmful cumulative impact on the listed building and conservation area were outlined in the report. The Conservation Officer concluded that the proposal would constitute less than substantial harm when set against the test in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, the Conservation Officer felt that the justification in support of this application had not been provided that would overcome this harm. The Conservation Officer considered that the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage assets.

Mr Shepherd then drew attention to the section in the report on the impact on highway safety which related to the permission granted for the redevelopment work for The Swan – application 16/2364/FUL. The design and access statement for this application noted explicitly that “It is considered that the works proposed as part of this application will not materially affect the number of visitors to the site and as such will not have any effect on the current parking provision on site.”

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.(2)

It was agreed that site visits during British Summer Time would take place in the evening. They would revert to mornings for the remainder of the year.

A date of 10 July 2019 in the evening was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the next Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 17 July 2019.