Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 6^th October.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2021 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Item 21(1) – 21/01481/HOUSE – Oakingham House, Bere Court Road, Pangbourne (additional first paragraph beneath the debate):

Councillor Alan Macro was not supportive of the application. He shared the concerns raised by the Parish Council that this would be a large and overly prominent building in the landscape.

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.

All Councillors, with the exception of Councillor Keith Woodhams, declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), 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.

(All Councillors, with the exception of Councillor Keith Woodhams, declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that the Parish Council representative, Mrs Mary Bedwell, 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 Richard Somner declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Holybrook Parish Council. 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 Councillors declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1) by an objector to the application.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/00488/FUL in respect of a proposed change of use of dwelling house (C3) to residential care accommodation (C2).

Ms Gemma Kirk, Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members and highlighted the key points. Ms Kirk drew attention to the update report, which addressed the issue of refuse storage and a condition had been recommended for details of a refuse storage area to be provided before the use commenced on site. In conclusion, it was recognised there had been a significant amount of objection as outlined in the report, but it was considered that acceptable development could be secured by the use of conditions. It was considered that the social benefits of the change of use outweighed the impacts of the development and conditional approval was recommended.

Mr Paul Goddard, Principal Highways Officer, presented the section of the report on highways matters and highlighted the key points. In conclusion, he reminded Members that paragraph 1.11 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be a severe impact and advised that in his opinion this proposal was not remotely close to having a severe impact.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Mary Bedwell and Ms Claire Tull, Parish Council representatives, Ms Angela Anderson and Ms Melissa Djogo, objectors, Mr Andrew Windress, agent and Mrs Shamim Hussain, applicant, and Councillor Richard Somner, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mrs Bedwell and Ms Tull from Holybrook Parish Council, in addressing the Committee, raised the following points:

·           Holybrook Parish Council was in agreement with the 89 residents who had objected and strongly opposed the application.

·           There appeared to be scant scrutiny of the build and form to ensure suitability of the proposed function. The built environment for special needs depended on need and one-size did not fit all.

·           Asperger’s required a different environment to autism or severe learning disabilities. There were no such accommodations within the proposal other than the basic consideration to make the bathroom and WC suitable for assisted use.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.(1)