Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 26 July 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2017 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

Item 16 (1) Application 17/00743/FUL

Page 8, final bullet point within Councillor Richardson’s address: amend ‘Englefield Parish Council’ to ‘Theale Parish Council’.

Page 9, third paragraph: Councillor Alan Macro asked that the final sentence was clarified to state that Councillor Richardson had referred to the Manager of the football team and that Councillor Bridgman’s question related to the land available for pitches once the site had been developed.

Page 9, fourth paragraph: amend ‘Theale Parish Council’ to ‘Englefield Parish Council’.

Page 10, paragraph 3, first sentence: amended to read ‘Councillor Alan Law agreed that the school would increase traffic to the area and asked whether the access to the school was from the road to the golf course’.

Item 16 (2) Application 17/00472/FULMAJ:

Page 16, second paragraph, first sentence: amended to read ‘Councillor Alan Law noted that Mr Crook had referred to ADPP6 however, as it had not been referenced in the Officer’s report, he asked for clarification.

Page 17, second bullet point in Councillor Boeck’s address: should state that he still lived in Brimpton.

Page 17, second paragraph: amended to include Councillor Richard Crumly.

Page 19, paragraph 7: amended to read ‘Councillor Marigold Jaques understood that the application was against policy however, it was well supported by the local community which was served by a thriving shop and pub – facilities which were lacking in many communities which should be noted’.

Page 19, first paragraph: should read ‘Councillor Law added that he had been Portfolio Holder when the policies in question had been agreed and were aimed at small ribbon development hamlets such as Welford and Leckhamstead. Therefore, he supported Officers’ view that the decision would set a very dangerous precedent. 

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 Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as his interest was a personal interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Sharon Armour, Solicitor, declared an interest in Agenda 4(2) and reported that she was unable to provide legal advice for the item.  

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/00968/FULD in respect of the demolition of existing b8 (egg distribution warehouse) and five garages, relocation of sewage treatment plant and erection of 4 houses; 2 x semi- detached 2-bed and 2 x semi-detached 3-bed homes with associated garden and parking.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Colin Pawson, Parish Council representative, Mr James Hanley, Mr Alan Maskell, Ms Denise Preston and Ms Julie Broun, objectors, and Mr Chris Keen, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Pawson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to discuss the application and he recognised that residents opposed the proposed development.

·         The reasons for objection related to matters around loss of privacy, poor design and more. He considered that the conditions, contained within the Officer’s report, were sufficient to address those concerns and therefore, the Parish Council accepted the application – in principle.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that concerns had been raised during the site visit regarding access to the site. Mr Pawson explained that one of their concerns related to the turning space for emergency or maintenance vehicles but he was satisfied that this had now been addressed. He also noted that concerns had been raised about increased traffic but he did not consider this to be a significant issue specifically relating to this development.

Mr Hanley in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He lived at the Lawrence Bungalow and required adequate access to the back garden to support his gardening business. He considered that concerns around access had been resolved, in principle, but he wanted to see that this was conditioned within the application to ensure a solution was delivered – if the application was approved.

·         He was concerned about access to the sewage treatment plant and wanted to see that this was considered fully within the plans.

Ms Broun in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She lived at number five Manor Farm Lane.

·         There was an issue with regards to flooding in the area and she felt that the development would exacerbate the issue further. It was essential that the application included mitigation measures to ensure flood risk was managed appropriately.

·         Parking was an issue for visitors due to the rural setting and limited parking space. He hoped that the application would also include the provision of 4 parking spaces. 

Ms Preston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She lived at number two Manor Farm Lane.

·         She was concerned about the hours of work detailed within the planning application and felt that 10 hours would cause too much disruption and noise. She requested that the working hours should be revised to 08:30.

·         She was concerned that plant material might block access to the site or cause an obstruction. 

Mr Maskell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He lived at number one Manor Farm Lane.

·         The calculated daily vehicle movement was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.(1)

 Councillor Graham Pask noted that the remaining members of the audience had attended to hear/ speak in respect of 17/01189/OUTD. Therefore, he suggested that Standing Orders were suspended in order that Agenda Item 4(3) could be considered prior to Agenda Item 4(2).

Members voted in favour of the proposal to suspend Standing Orders and proceeded to consider Agenda Item 4(3).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/01889/OUTD in respect of 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. Matters to be considered: Access and Layout.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Thomas Wright, supporter, Mrs Kim Cohen, agent, and Mr Malcolm Hatton, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Wright in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had lived near Larch House since 1970 and much of the surroundings had changed in that time. The land had previously been used for grazing and storage which were integral parts of the farm.

·         Over time the buildings had been converted into residential properties and the two outbuildings, referred to in the current planning application, were the last remaining.

·         The proposed site was within an agricultural footprint and recent additions, such as a wall, provided a degree of privacy.

·         The proposed development would enhance the appearance of the area and turn the current eye-sore into a purposeful building.

·         This type of application had been a topic of conversation many times within the hamlet area - there had been numerous requests to convert outbuildings into a dwellinghouse.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr Wright advised that the nature reserve was a very popular place to walk but the section of road alongside the application site was rarely used and was quite dangerous to walk. Therefore, the footpath was not heavily used and views into the proposed development would be limited.

Mr Hatton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had owned Larch House for over thirty years and he appreciated that the current application was not necessarily straight forward but he intended to explain the reasons for his application.

·         He had lived in the area for many years and fully intended on staying for years to come. The proposed dwellinghouse would provide a more modest and manageable space to live in.

·         The development would enhance the immediate area with minimal impact on neighbouring properties and amenities.

·         The application had not received any letters of objection and he fought hard to get the application to be considered by the Committee.

·         He owned the development site which offered limited benefits in its current state. He empathised that he wanted a more modest home in the same area so the proposal in front of Members appeared to make perfect sense.

Mrs Cohen in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The surrounding area had been introduced progressively over time and not all hedge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

(Sharon Armour declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by the virtue of the fact that the applicants were known to her. Therefore, she was unable to provide legal advice and would vacate the meeting during the course of consideration on the matter.)

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew a number of local residents near the application site. 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.)

(Sharon Armour left the meeting.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/01276/HOUSE in respect of a loft conversation with roof alternations and Velux windows.

Councillor Pask advised that the Parish Council had submitted their request to speak. However, it was received after the agreed deadline of 16:00 (as stated within in Part 7, point 7.13.2 of West Berkshire Council’s Constitution). For this reason there were no speakers registered to address the Committee on this application.

Councillor Emma Webster stated that the item was called in due to the proposed change in the roof line. She explained that the main issue appeared to be around limited parking - notably since the garage had been converted into an office.

Councillor Webster referred to the report and the Highways Officer comments contained within. She recognised new polices could not be applied retrospectively but stated that if Members were minded to approve the application, she would expect to see adequate plans to propose an additional parking space on site.

In response to questions asked, Gareth Dowding advised, if the application was for the consideration of a 4-bed new build dwellinghouse, he would expect to see plans to provide at least 3 parking spaces. He provided Members with the measurements of the existing parking space and that of the area required for 2 formal parking spaces.  Councillor Graham Bridgeman suggested that there could be sufficient grounds to refuse the application based on the issue of parking alone.

Councillor Marigold Jaques requested clarification from Officers in terms of the reason why a planning Application was required for a loft conversation. David Pearson advised that a planning application was required due to the change in the roof line in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the potential impact this may impose.

Councillor Alan Law advised that he agreed with the comments presented by Councillor Bridgman but considered that it would not stand as a reason for refusal if the decision went to appeal.

Councillor Richard Crumly expressed his support towards the comments made by Councillor Bridgman and suggested that there should be adequate plans to include an additional parking space, if the application was approved.

Councillor Pamela Bale challenged whether there was an opportunity to request that the garage reverted back to a usable parking space. David Pearson advised that it would be hard to enforce such a condition and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

A date of 30 August 2017 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 6 September 2017.