Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 24 May 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 May 2017 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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 16/03528/FUL in respect of removal of conditions 7, 18 and 19, and the variation of condition 11 from previously approved application 16/01016 FUL.

Councillor Graham Bridgman disputed the advice from Officers, provided in the update report, that planning material could not be considered because it had been submitted to the Council less than 5 working days prior to the meeting. He suggested that it was a matter for the Chairman to exercise his discretion, if he so wished, to allow the material to be presented at the meeting. Councillor Graham Pask acknowledged that he could exercise discretion but had chosen to abide by the constitution in the spirit of consistency and fairness.

Bob Dray confirmed that the material was an independent transcript of the previous meeting and not a direct extract from the minutes produced by Officers.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Anthony Fenn, Parish Council representative, Howie Silver and Phil Magurn, objectors, Luke French, supporter and Graham Joyce applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Anthony Fenn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Midgham Parish Council objected to the removal of the conditions on the basis that significant emphasis had been placed on the need to minimise the impact to the public.

·         The Parish Council was disappointed to hear that the previous application had been approved. However, the conditions reassured many that their concerns would be managed.

·         The applicant accepted the proposed conditions at the meeting on 26^th October 2016 (considering application 16/01016 FUL) so they were surprised to learn that only a few weeks later a new application had been submitted in an attempt to remove them.

·         It was not clear what activity the sound survey had measured on site which raised questions around the validity of the report - reinforced by the comments of Environmental Health Officers which led to them recommending that a further assessment was carried out.

·         Condition 18 was introduced to minimise the impact of repetitive, annoying and impulsive noises and was still necessary due to the type of work carried out onsite.

·         The sound report suggested that the noise level from the site was less than surrounding background noise but on a recent visit to a neighbouring property it was evident that the noise level was intrusive and that the roller shutter door had been left open.

·         The Parish Council believed that an acoustic fence was essential and that conditions 7, 18 and 19 should remain.

In response to questions asked, Mr Fenn confirmed that he was not opposed to the proposed changes to condition 11.

Phil Magnurn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He lived next to Sabre House and had not been present at the meeting on 26^th October 2016 when the previous application was considered. He was disappointed with the decision made by the Committee but took comfort in the conditions which the applicant was, apparently, willing to comply with.

·         The validity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/00402/FULEXT in respect of variations to conditions 11, 21, and 22 as agreed through planning application 15/01983/FULEXT.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Granham Rolfe, Parish Council representative, John Drabble, objector, and David Howells, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Granham Rolfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was not aware of the changes which had been proposed to condition 24.

·         He objected to the loss of landscaping due to the additional car parking spaces.

·         The additional parking to the front of the site would be detrimental to the key feature of the village which was the ‘green corridor’ effect as you entered from Reading. This feature had been identified by two planning inspectors and had been a key point in dismissing previous appeals.

·         Condition 24 was incorporated in the decision because it was in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework – Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy. 

·         The proposed change was far from minor. It impacted the key feature of the village and it contradicted principles in CS14.

·         He had seen a letter from the applicant who stated that the development had sufficient parking and that the additional spaces were merely ‘extra’.

·         The letter also stated that the Parish Council objected to the inclusion of a hedge – this was incorrect. The Parish Council objected to the inclusion of railings and a bush.

John Drabble in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         His keen concern was that the changes to the site impacted the appearance of the area through the loss of suitable landscaping; greenery was a key feature of the area.

·         The current car park/garden layout was not part of the original planning application, and so the imposed changes had affected the appearance of the area and character of the village.

·         The proposed landscaping plan failed to provide adequate cover to the west of the site and did not include the use of evergreen trees – therefore the site would be devoid of sufficient coverage throughout the year.

·         The plan failed to consider the suitability of the plants/trees in chalk based soil. In addition – the plan should consider introducing more evergreen plants.

·         These matters were very detailed but it was important to him that the Committee considered the appearance of the site through the landscaping plans presented in front of them.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr Drabble confirmed that the original landscaping plan, which included a hedge around the periphery of the site, was sufficient.

David Howells in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He spoke on behalf of the applicant - Stanley Homes Ltd.

·         The proposal referred to the inclusion of three additional car parking spaces and adjusted landscaping plans to accommodate - the revised plans had been informed by advice from the Tree Officers at the Council.

·         Landscaping was not yet complete so Members would have seen the work in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Agenda Item 4(3) concerning Planning Application 17/01042/OUTD – an outline planning permission for the redevelopment and change of use of the site to residential (C3) to provide a single storey detached dwellinghouse with rooms in the roof space was withdrawn from the agenda and would therefore not be considered by the Committee at the meeting on 5 July 2017.