Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 30 October 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 Gareth Hurley declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), 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.

Councillors Tony Linden, Alan Macro and Jo Stewart declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, 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.

It was noted that all Members had received communication from Bellway Homes Limited in relation to Agenda Item 4(2). This was new information received within the past five working days and was therefore disregarded.

(Councillor Gareth Hurley declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was in attendance at the Pangbourne Parish Council meeting when this application was discussed. However, he confirmed that he would be considering the matter afresh at this meeting. 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 18/01221/FULD in respect of the construction of a new dwelling with associated parking and landscaping.

Mr Bob Dray, Development Control Team Leader, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·                  Essentially, Planning Officers were recommending refusal of the item on three grounds highlighted below.

·           In principle, the site was positioned outside of the settlement boundary.

·           Regarding flooding, although the Environment Agency had removed its technical objection to the scheme, a policy objection remained as the proposed development failed the sequential test.

·           The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the street scene and the current green space to the end of the characterful road.

·                  The update report included an additional consultation response from the Lead Local Flood Authority however, this did not affect the policy flooding objection.

·                  In conclusion, it was felt that any benefit from the scheme was outweighed by the highlighted conflicts and harm and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Higgs, Parish Council representative, Ms Sara Dutfield, agent and Councillor Gareth Hurley, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Higgs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Pangbourne Parish Council was concerned that the scheme was outside of the settlement boundary.

·                    The distance between the closest building on Greenway and the proposal was only 11 metres and in the Parish Council’s view this should be no less than 21 metres.

·                    It was not felt that Appendix 1, which included the Design Statement for the application, accurately showed the building line for the site.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Alan Law noted in the Officer’s report that no objection had been raised by the Parish Council and therefore asked Mr Higgs to clarify the position of the Parish Council. Mr Higgs stated that the Parish Council’s decision about the application had been split for and against. Concerns had been raised about the scheme being outside of the settlement boundary and regarding the distance to the building opposite.

Agent’s Representation:

Ms Dutfield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Concerns had been raised about three areas including the principle of development, flooding and impact on the character of the area.

·                     There was no dispute that the site was positioned outside of the settlement boundary however, the nature of the surrounding land also needed to be taken into account, which included a Thames Water Plant.

·                     The site was not in open countryside and was within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.(1)

(Councillor Tony Linden declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he lived in Knollmead, Calcot. However, he considered that this was not close enough geographically to the application site to influence his views on the matter. 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.)

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew the parish representative and the objector. 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.)

(Councillor Jo Stewart declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she previously sat on the Holybrook Parish Council Planning Committee. However, she confirmed that she would consider the matter afresh. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(All Members had received communication from Bellway Homes Limited in relation to Agenda Item 4(2). This was new information received within the past five working days and was therefore disregarded.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/01544/FULEXT in respect of a full planning application for the erection of 199 dwellings (including affordable housing) with public open space, hard and soft landscaping, and vehicular access from Dorking Way.

Prior to the Planning Officer’s introduction to the report, Councillor Alan Law highlighted the fact that the principle of development had already been established for this site, as an application for between 150 and 200 dwellings had been allocated within the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) Policy HSA12.

Michael Butler, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         He made a correction to paragraph 1.2 of the report. This should state the proposed housing mix as 30 no. 1 beds, 54 no. 2 beds, 85 no. 3 beds, and 30 no. 4 beds.

·         Mr Butler considered that the principle objection was the impact on infrastructure and on local traffic movements. However, the Highways Officer was recommending conditional permission.

·         Detailed traffic modelling had been undertaken and this concluded that there would be an overall increase of less than 1% on the highway network on average in the morning peak period. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that a development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

·         Housing Officers were supportive with 40% (80 units) affordable.

·         Paragraph 6.12 of the report noted that no nationally designated landscape would be directly affected by the scheme since the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) lay some distance to the north of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.(2)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/01658/FUL in respect of the erection of single storey building to be used as an office for the Oxford Diocese. The proposal included parking, landscaping and facilities for the Parochial Church Council and the Rector of the Holy Trinity Church.

Mr Bob Dray, Development Control Team Leader, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The site was accessed from Englefield Road in Theale.

·         Councillor Macro had called the site in if approval was recommended as the Parish Council had raised concerns about the impact on the Grade One Listed Church and Grade Two Listed Old Rectory.

·         The site was located within the settlement boundary.

·         The key consideration fundamentally was the impact on the conservation area and the setting of the surrounding historic buildings.

·         Regarding the view of the front of the site, the proposed building would be able to be seen just behind the garage of the Rectory. 

·         Visibility splays and access had been discussed at the site visit and the Highways Officer was satisfied with this aspect of the application.

·         Historic England had been consulted and they concluded that there would be a minor degree of harm caused if the application was approved.

·         Public views of the proposed building would be limited.

·         It was a statutory duty to give special regard to the desirability of conserving the setting of listed buildings. 

·         In the view of Planning Officers, the benefits of the scheme outweighed the limited harm to the setting of the surrounding heritage assets that would be caused and therefore approval of the application was recommended.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Mitchell, agent and Councillor Alan Macro, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent Representation:

Mr Mitchell in addressing the Committee, raised the following points:

·         He had provided the surveyor services for the Diocese for 13 years.

·         The proposed scheme had changed several times to help it fit in with its surroundings.

·         Historic England had been consulted and raised no objection to the scheme.

·         The proposed building had been sensitively designed, including the position of the car park and landscaping.

·         The car park had been considered very carefully and the access road was safe. As part of the scheme the access road would be widened.

·         Plants along the existing boundary would be retained as part of the proposed landscaping and would be enhanced.

·         Mr Mitchell had attended the Parish Council meeting regarding the scheme, to address any concerns.

·         The Parish Council had been concerned that the scheme was not in keeping with the residential area. Mr Mitchell stated that the site was surrounded by non-residential buildings.

·         The Parish Council had raised concern about the design of the proposed building. Mr Mitchell stated that the scheme had been sensitively designed and was only single storey. The view of the building would be very limited.

·         The Parish Council had been concerned that the scheme would be overbearing. Mr Mitchell commented that Planning Officers’ viewed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.(3)

A date of 27 November 2019 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the next Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 4 December 2019.