Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 28 October 2020.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Item 28 – 20/00674/FUL – land to the south east of Mortimer Station, Station Road, Mortimer (third paragraph of debate):

Councillor Macro stated that his ward had been mentioned during discussions. Other potential sites for Theale Primary School had been ruled out due to the impact on the countryside. Regarding Theale Station, a bid had been submitted to improve the station including increasing the size of the car park and had been granted conditional funding approval by the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership.

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 Alan Law explained that he had asked Councillor Alan Macro, as Vice-Chairman, to Chair Agenda Item 4(1). This was not a declaration of interest and Councillor Law had not pre-determined the item, but he did have a different interpretation of some aspects of the officer’s report that he wished to comment on and did not feel it would be appropriate to do so from the Chair.

All Members of the Committee 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.

(Councillor Alan Law explained that he had asked Councillor Alan Macro, as Vice-Chairman, to Chair Agenda Item 4(1). This was not a declaration of interest and Councillor Law had not pre-determined the item, but he did have a different interpretation of some aspects of the officer’s report that he wished to comment on and did not feel it would be appropriate to do so from the Chair.)

(Councillor Alan Macro in the Chair).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/00723/FULD in respect of an application for a new dwelling and relocated access.

Removal of Speaking Rights

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Ian Parsons, Parish Council representative, and from Mr Graham Starkins, Mr William Howard and Mrs Camille Howard, objectors.

Parish Council Representation

The written submission of Basildon Parish Council was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·                     The Parish Council had objected to the building of a house at the rear of Timberley on each occasion that the application had been made. The location of the proposal, the garden site, was the central reason for these objections. Pangbourne Road did have some housing behind the main pattern of housing parallel with the road but these buildings had minimal impact upon immediate neighbours, unlike this proposal which would overlook a number of houses in the vicinity, and would change the character of this part of the village.

·                     There were many grounds for objection to this proposal outlined by a very wide range of residents in their individual submissions. The Parish Council was particularly concerned about the following.

1.         There would be an increase in cars using the relatively small access point onto Pangbourne Road.

2.         The rear of the proposed construction consisted of a series of paddocks and a wood: the proposed construction would intrude upon the natural landscape.

3.         There was a continuing concern that the site would cross the settlement boundary.

4.         Building in the back garden of properties had been opposed consistently by the Parish Council and by residents. One of the remarkable features of this application was how little space was available for building,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(1)

(Councillor Alan Law resumed in the Chair)

(All Members of the Committee declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that Richard Benyon, Chairman of Englefield Estate and former MP, was known to them. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they 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 his children had attended Englefield Primary School and one of the supporters was an acquaintance of his. 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 Ross Mackinnon declared that he was the Ward Member for the item and had called it in however, had not pre-determined the application and would consider it with an open mind.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/01637/FUL in respect of the change of use of land from agricultural use to a car park.

Ms Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, gave a detailed presentation on the application and highlighted the key points, including:

·         The site was within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and was adjacent to a listed building.

·         The main issues for consideration were whether the proposed scheme would have an acceptable impact on the protected landscape and designated heritage asset and whether it was justified and appropriate limited development.

·         The application was recommended for refusal for five reasons: inappropriate development for location; harm to Englefield conservation area; harm to the setting of a listed building; landscape and visual impacts within the AONB and loss of green infrastructure.

Removal of Speaking Rights

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Richard Smith, Parish Council Representative, Mrs Hilary Latimer and Mr Chris Gittins, supporters, and Mr Phil Brown, the Agent.

Parish Council Representation

The written submission of Englefield Parish Council was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·                    The proposed development was primarily justified, and overwhelmingly supported,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(2)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 20/01940/LBC2 in respect of the addition of a kitchen vent through the roof of the rear extension.

Bob Dray, Development Control Team Leader, presented the report. He reminded Members that the only consideration for this application was whether the proposal preserved the special architectural and historical interest of this listed building and its setting.

Mr Dray explained that the Conservation Officer originally had concerns that the proposed flue would appear overly obtrusive due to its height and positioning. This had resulted in alterations being made to replace the flue with an inline vent and the Conservation Officer was satisfied with this revision. The Conservation Officer felt that the in-line clay tile vent would not be in any way obtrusive or harm the appearance of the building as long as the colour of the clay tile matched the approved tiles.

The 14 objections from members of the public were primarily concerned with the height and obtrusiveness of the flue and the flue had been amended in the way described.

Concerns raised of odour and noise did not apply to a listed building consent.

The Officer recommendation was to grant listed building consent subject to conditions, which included a condition for the materials that would be used.

No written submissions were received.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Alan Law in addressing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·                     By way of background, Councillor Law explained that there had been a level of controversy in the planning history of West Streatley House and some enforcement issues raised in relation to set times for deliveries and for works. A level of concern had persisted in the local area and there had been objections to this application for listed building consent, primarily in relation to the flue.

·                     As explained by the Planning Officer, the changes made to the proposed flue and vent had done much to alleviate the concerns. The Conservation Officer was satisfied with the revisions made. 

No questions were asked of the Ward Member.

Questions to Officers

Councillor Geoff Mayes queried if it was a gas flue and whether there was a window overlooking the adjacent neighbouring property.

In response, Mr Dray explained that he was unclear on the fuel to be used but this was not relevant to an application for listed building consent. The only consideration was the impact on the character of the listed building.

The rear extension and its windows were at some distance from the neighbouring property as shown on the plans.

Debate

Councillor Tony Linden proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to grant listed building consent subject to conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Jeremy Cottam.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant listed building consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.         Commencement of works

The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(3)