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. View directions

Contact: Stephen Chard / Jessica Bailiss 

Items
No. Item

12.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 201 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 26 June 2019.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Item 10 (2) – 18/02975/FUL – The Swan at Streatley, High Street, Streatley

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent, second paragraph, first and second sentences:

Councillor Law then queried if there would be an intensification of use of the site by the Coppa Club when there was no indication of a Coppa Club in the 2016/17 applications. Thus the number of restaurant covers would increase beyond the planning permission granted for redevelopment of The Swan in 2016.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent, third paragraph, first sentence:

Councillor Law followed this by asking if ‘up to 300 covers’ was an intensification of use by the Coppa Club.

Ward Member Representation (first bullet point):

He called the application in to Committee. The applicant had requested this action if the application was recommended for refusal, but Councillor Law clarified that he had done so regardless of the Officer recommendation.

Ward Member Representation (final bullet point):

At this point, Councillor Law advised that he was tending to be supportive of the Officer recommendation for refusal, but still wished to hear and consider views of other Committee Members.

Debate – seventh paragraph, second sentence:

The strong support did not reflect the views of many Streatley residents he had discussed this with, other than some High Street residents, church goers and users of the Morrell Room whose points were understood.

Debate – final paragraph, first sentence:

Councillor Law proposed to accept Officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission and if necessary an Appeal Inspector could rule on this complex application.

13.

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 Royce Longton 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.

All Members had been lobbied by the applicant for Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that they would consider the application with an open mind. As their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

As per the above, Councillor Tony Linden declared that he had received information on the morning of the Committee concerning Agenda Item 4(2) and confirmed that he would not take this information into consideration as it had not been received by the deadline. The Chairman highlighted that this information had been received by all Committee Members and stated it was poor practice as no new evidence could be considered after the deadline for new information had passed.

14.

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.)

14.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 19/00344/COMIND Stonehams Farm, Long Lane, Tilehurst pdf icon PDF 130 KB

Proposal:

Demolition of existing structures, and erection of an 85 bed care home (Class C2) with associated works including one access, parking, services, and landscaping.

Location:

Stonehams Farm, Long Lane, Tilehurst

Applicant:

Frontier Estates Limited

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/00344/COMIND in respect of the demolition of existing structures and erection of an 85 bed care home (Class C2) with associated works including one access, parking, services and landscaping.

Mr Michael Butler introduced the report to Members’ of the Committee, which recommended conditional approval, and ran through the key points. Over 10 letters of objection had been received for the application. Objections had been received from Tilehurst Parish Council, Public Rights of Way and Pang Valley Ramblers. Objections had not been received from any of the other statutory bodies consulted on the application.

Mr Butler clarified that the original application for the site included a 74 bed care home plus four additional dwellings with a separate access. Following negotiations with Officers the dwellings were removed along with the additional access. The number of bed spaces at the proposed care home increased by 11 to 85.

Regarding Planning Policy, Mr Butler reported that the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) encouraged the provision of care homes. Mr Butler drew attention to section 6.2.2 of the report which highlighted that there remained an extant need for care home beds.

Mr Butler drew attention to comments in the update sheet from Travel Policy, which raised no objections to the proposal. The update sheet also contained a comment from the Highways Officer in response to ongoing concerns raised at the site visit regarding access to the site.

Also in the update sheet was a recommendation to amend the wording of condition 16 concerning reducing the age restriction on people entering the care home from 65 to 55 years old.

Finally Mr Butler clarified that there was no proposed footpath link between the application site and the housing to the north west of the site. This had been indicated in the Housing Site Allocation Development Plan Document (HAS DPD) however, did not form part of the application given the nature of the proposal and the residents of the care home who would not be walking outside the application site for health and safety reasons.

Mr Butler concluded that on balance Officers were recommending the application be approved.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Clive Taylor and Ms Rose Reynolds, Parish Council representatives, and Ms Hannah Pearce, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Taylor and Ms Reynolds in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr Taylor was the vice-chairman of Tilehurst Parish Council, which had taken an interested view in the development of the land in question for many years.

·                    The Parish Council objected to the proposal for an 85 bed care home one the site for a number of reasons:

1)    The HAS DPD had been adopted by West Berkshire Council on 17th May 2017. Originally the site had been allocated in the view of accommodating 15 family dwellings. It was important that consistency was applied and if the current proposal was approved it would call the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(1)

14.(2)

Application No. & Parish: 19/00772/RESMAJ Land adjacent to Primrose Croft, Reading Road, Burghfield Common pdf icon PDF 154 KB

Proposal:

Approval of reserved matters application following outline application 16/01685/OUTMAJ for 28 dwellings.  Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.

Location:

Land Adjacent To Primrose Croft, Reading Road,

Burghfield Common

Applicant:

Crest Nicholson South

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorise to GRANT approval of reserved matters subject to conditions

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

,(Councillor Royce Longton declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the manager of The Hollies Nursing Home was his next door neighbour. 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.)

(All Members had been lobbied by the applicant for Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that they would consider the application with an open mind. As their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they 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 19/00772/RESMAJ in respect of a reserved matters application following approval of the outline application 16/0168/OUTMAJ for 28 dwellings. Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ian Morrin and Ms Andrea Hales, Parish Council representatives, Dr Gail Johnston and Mr Ben Tait, objectors, Mr Alastair Pott and Ms Michelle Quan, applicant/agent, and Councillor Graham Bridgman (Ward Member) addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Representation

Mr Morrin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    This was an unpopular development in Burghfield due to the serious impact it would have upon the health of residents living at the Hollies Nursing Home.

·                    The housing density of 30 dwellings per hectare was not sympathetic and was out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

·                    The affordable housing proposed should be distributed across the site, in line with West Berkshire Council’s policy, rather than being clustered together.

·                    The buffers between the site and the Hollies needed to be enhanced to go beyond the minimum requirement.

·                    The proposal conflicted with the Burghfield Parish Design Statement.

·                    Pedestrian safety needed to be ensured. The public footpath on Reading Road would be on the opposite side from the development with no form of crossing facility.

·                    A car park layout plan needed to be submitted.

·                    Only one point of access was proposed to the site, this was a concern for emergency vehicle access.

Ms Hales in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Density was a concern as this created a close boundary with the Hollies.

·                    There was no agreement in place for the maintenance of the buffers.

·                    The proposal had received approximately 50 objections. The noise impact created by the development of and occupation of the site would have a serious long term impact upon the health and wellbeing of residents of the Hollies, in particular to their mental health. The exposure to constant noise would result in sleep deprivation and depression. All the windows of the Hollies were single glazed.

·                    Many Hollies’ residents suffered from dementia and it would be difficult for them to understand and cope with the close proximity of the development and the noise it would generate. Ms Hales urged the Committee to consider how they would view this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(2)

14.(3)

Application No. & Parish: 19/01171/FULD Blacknest Farm, Brimpton Common, Reading, RG7 4RN pdf icon PDF 180 KB

Proposal:

Demolition, salvage and rebuild of the existing buildings to create three live-work units together with access, landscaping and associated works.

Location:

Blacknest Farm, Brimpton Common, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 4RN

Applicant:

Feltham Properties

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorise to REFUSE planning permission

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/01171/FULD in respect of the demolition, salvage and rebuild of the existing buildings to create three live-work units together with access, landscaping and associated works.

Mr David Pearson introduced the report to Members’ of the Committee, which recommended refusal, and ran through the key points. The item had been called in by the Ward Member as it had been recommended for refusal, due to expressed concerns by local residents and Brimpton Parish Council concerning the condition of the existing buildings.

Regarding the planning history of the site, there was extant consent on the site for conversion of the existing buildings for mixed use including residential and storage. An application for conversion with few alterations to the buildings had been received and supported by Planning Officers however, subsequently the agent had revised their plans and had submitted an application for the demolition and redevelopment of the site and an application had been refused in 2018.  The current application was an almost identical scheme to the one refused in 2018 and objections had been received from Ecology and Planning Policy.

Mr Pearson referred to the update sheet, which detailed that Officers had tried to persuade the applicant to provide an updated ecology report however, the applicant had suggested that the application be accepted in principle and then the ecology report would be provided afterwards. Officers’ did not agree that this was an acceptable way forward.

Mr Pearson stated that the principle of the development was unacceptable and contrary to the development plan. An additional reason for refusal included the failure to provide an up to date report on the Brown Long Eared Bats inhabiting on the site. If approved Mr Pearson stated that the application would have to be referenced up to the District Planning Committee for final decision due to the strategic impact approval, which was clearly contrary to development plan policy, would have on the application of the relevant issues involved across the district.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Mary Cowdery, Parish Council representative, and Mr Sean Bates (applicant) and Mr Steven Smallman (agent), addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Ms Cowdery in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Ms Cowdery was representing Brimpton Parish Council, which was in support of the application.

·         The site had been a brownfield site since 1897 and farm buildings had been present on the site since this time to her knowledge.

·         The current buildings had been present on the site since 1968 and therefore were not in the best condition. 

·         The last application for conversion had been submitted in 2017 however, upon further investigation the buildings had been found to be unfit for conversion.

·         The current application would bring the site up to date and would ensure it complied with necessary building regulations.

·         Planning Policy C1 concerned settlements in the countryside and used the words ‘close knit’ cluster of dwellings as a reason to accept development in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(3)

14.(4)

Application No. & Parish: 19/00713/COMIND Bere Court Farm Bungalow, Bere Court, Pangbourne, Reading RG8 8HT pdf icon PDF 141 KB

Proposal:

Section 73A: Variation of condition 2: approved plans, of planning permission 16/01419/COMIND

Location:

Bere Court Farm Bungalow, Bere Court, Pangbourne, Reading, Berkshire, RG8 8HT

Applicant:

Mr Rehman Mohammed

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT planning permission subject to the schedule of conditions (section 8.2).

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/00713/COMIND in respect of a Section 73A application for the variation of condition 2: approved plans of planning permission 16/01419/COMIND.

David Pearson (Development Control Team Leader) introduced the report. He explained that the applicant was seeking to regularise the constructed building by removing some of the unauthorised development to a level that could be acceptable to the Council. The update report provided an updated version of the dimensions table and this showed that the appellant proposed to complete the building as originally approved, except for the height which would increase by 0.3 metres from the original approval. For clarity, it was confirmed that the proposed height would be unchanged from the unauthorised development, i.e. 5.9 metres.

Officers’ recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission.

The update report also made reference to a request from the applicant for condition one to be amended which would extend the timeframe for completing the work from six months to nine months. The Officer view was that six months was a reasonable time for the completion of the work.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Higgs, Parish Council representative, and Mr Mart Pettitt and Ms Nikki Boughton-Smith, supporters, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Representation

Mr Higgs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council objected to this retrospective application. A retrospective application was refused in 2018 and there was also a separate refusal not referred to in the planning history.

·                    Both the unauthorised development and this proposal were not in accordance with plans approved in 2016. Proposed windows and doors were not shown in the plans, neither was having an upper floor.

·                    Paragraph 5.4 of the Committee report explained that the breach of planning control was referred to Planning Enforcement and the enquiry that followed established that the building had been constructed as a dwelling. A dwelling had not been permitted and the development should be as per the plans.

·                    Mr Higgs queried what guarantee could be given that the development, if approved, would adhere to the plans.

Supporter Representation (it was clarified that Mr Pettitt was in fact the agent and Ms Boughton-Smith the partner of the applicant)

Mr Pettitt in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The conditions of the August 2016 permission had been discharged, with the exception that the development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. This application was to regularise the constructed building and make it acceptable to the Council.

·                    Subject to approval of this application, the build would be in accordance with plans. The building would not be used as a dwelling, the need remained for the new stable block and farm machinery store.

·                    The applicant was content with the conditions recommended by officers and the accompanying restrictions on the building’s use. The required alterations to the building would be completed within the prescribed timeframe.

·                    No letters of objection had been received to this application and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(4)

15.

Site Visits

Minutes:

A date of 21 August 2019 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary (held in the morning on this occasion due to District Planning Committee being held in the evening). This was in advance of the next Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 28 August 2019.