To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Calcot Centre, Highview (off Royal Avenue), Calcot

Contact: Stephen Chard / Charlene Hurd / Jessica Bailiss 

Items
No. Item

25.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 187 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 16th August 2017.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16th August 2017 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendment:

Item 20 (1) Application 17/00968/FULD:

Page 11, first paragraph to read as follows: (Councillor Alan Macro) Therefore, he was keen to see that Permitted Development Rights were removed on both the south and east side of the new development.

26.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillors Keith Chopping and Quentin Webb declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), and 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.

Councillors Graham Pask, Marigold Jaques, Quentin Webb and Emma Webster declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), and 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.

 

27.

Schedule of Planning Applications

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications.)

27.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 17/02012/FULD - Green Gables, Tidmarsh Lane, Tidmarsh, Reading pdf icon PDF 165 KB

Proposal:

Erection of replacement dwelling and 4no. Dwellings and associated works; demolition of Class B buildings and extinguishment of lawful plant storage and distribution operations; removal of hard standing.

 

Location:

Green Gables, Tidmarsh Lane, Tidmarsh, Reading

 

Applicant:

Mr S Holland

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reasons for refusal set out in section 8.1 of this report

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Keith Chopping declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that a supporter, Mrs Hornblow, was known to him . 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 Quentin Webb declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had used P and R Motors, which was owned by the applicant. 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 17/02012/FULD in respect of the erection of a replacement dwelling and 4no. Dwellings and associated works; demolition of Class B buildings and extinguishment of lawful plant storage and distribution operations; removal of hard standing.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Deirdre Cuthbert and Mrs Hornblow, supporters and Mr Mark Leedale, agent, addressed the Committee on this application

Mrs Deirdre Cuthbert and Mrs Hornblow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs Cuthbert explained that Maidenhatch was a residential area near to the site location and was home to 23 families.

·         Since early on in the millennium, residents had fought to oppose industrial use of the site. HGVs and plant vehicles used the site and they caused traffic chaos in the area.

·         Local residents of Maidenhatch were keen to see current structures replaced by suitable housing which would be more in keeping with the area.

·         12 cars were already parked within the garage of the house on the site. Therefore if there were two to three cars for each of the five dwellings proposed, there would be little difference in traffic movements. There would however, be no HGV movements from the site if the application was approved.

·         Local residents fully supported the scaled down proposal for the site, which would retain the local distinctiveness.

·         Pangbourne and Tidmarsh needed more housing and this did not necessarily need to fall into the affordable homes category.

·         In summary Mrs Cuthbert compared the application to the current site:

-       Highways: there would be the same amount of cars entering and exiting the site however, there would be no HGV movements.

-       Noise levels: the noise level from five houses would not be as high as that generated from HGVs. Noise was often encountered during the early hours of the morning.

-       Odour: the unpleasant odour from the cleaning of site portaloos and those being transported to and from the site would be resolved if the application was approved.

-       Appearance: the proposal was aesthetically pleasing compared to the current appearance of the site.

·         Residents were concerned that if the application was not approved then the site would be sold with industrial usage rights.

·         Mrs Hornblow described a scenario to Members of the Committee. She described problems relating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.(1)

27.(2)

Application No. & Parish: 17/02365/HOUSE - 4 Beechfield, Frilsham, RG18 9XF pdf icon PDF 111 KB

Proposal:

Single storey side and rear extension

Location:

4 Beechfield, Frilsham, RG18 9XF

Applicant:

Adam and Bryoney Pusey

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to Approve PLANNING PERMISSION.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors Quentin Webb, Marigold Jaques and Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the objectors to the application were 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 Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the neighbour of the applicant was known to him. 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(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02365/HOUSE in respect of a single storey side and rear extension.

It was noted by Members that conditions, should planning permission be granted, were included within the update report pack.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn and

Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn objectors, and Mr Adam Pusey, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn and Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn reported that he was also representing his father who lived close to the proposal however, was currently unwell.

·                    His main concerns regarded the size and proportion of the proposed extension. Any extension on the back of a semi-detached property would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours.

·                    The area was very rural and consisted of many open spaces including Frilsham Green. 

·                    He referred to the Development Plan 2006 and stated that he had not expected when buying a house in an area as rural as Frilsham, that amenity could be compromised to such an extent. He was of the impression that certain criteria had to be met.

·                    No other development within the village had imposed an impact to such a negative degree. There would be a reduction in amenity and sunlight to neighbouring properties.

·                    Mr Henry Burgoyne Probyn stated that his garden was a place of greenery however, this would change if the extension was approved due to the density of the proposal.

·                    The huge increase in floor-space would set a precedent in the village.

·                    Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn stated that the extension to his property carried out in 2003 had been much smaller in scale.

·                    He was not objecting to the principle of the proposal but to the unacceptable increase in size currently proposed.

Councillor Richard Crumly noted that there had been three previous applications for an extension on the site that had been refused and he asked if they had all been large in size. Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn stated that they had all been double storey. The recent application was only single storey however, protruded further outwards rather than upwards.

Councillor Emma Webster asked for clarification on which rooms would be closest to the extension and what they were used for. Mr Charles Burgoyne Probyn confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.(2)

28.

Application No. & Parish:17/01967/FULD - Knappswood Farm, Pangbourne Road, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8LN pdf icon PDF 200 KB

Proposal:

Demolition of existing house containing 3 units and erection of 3 houses.

Location:

Knappswood Farm, Pangbourne Road, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8LN

Applicant:

Mr John Wakefield

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 legal agreement between the Council, the applicant and the owners of Hollins and Southfields.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/01967/FULD in respect of the demolition of an existing house containing 3 units and the erection of 3 houses.

David Pearson highlighted that the full recommendation for the application was to be delegated to the Head of Development and Planning to Grant Planning Permission subject to the completion, within two months of the date of Committee, of a legal agreement to secure the provision of visibility splays at the access onto Pangbourne Road in accordance with Policy C3 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations Or to refuse the application if the agreement was not completed within this period. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Carol Reed, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ms Carol Reed in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The site was located on a bend. Parents walked along the road to school with their children and often buggies, which was extremely dangerous as vehicles were often exceeding 30mph.

·                    There would be several new houses if the application was approved, with an average of two cars per house. The road was particularly narrow and was not suitable for an increase in traffic.

·                    Mrs Reed was concerned about possible contamination on the site and requested clarification from Officers on this point.

Mr Pearson referred to the report where there were conditions relating to contamination on pages 75 and 76. The first of the conditions referred to a land assessment and the other conditions dealt with what would need to take place if contamination was found on the land. It was confirmed that the conditions covered potential eventualities to ensure contamination would be dealt with in the necessary manner.

Comments from the Environmental Health Department noted that the former pit located approximately 40metres to the south of the site had been identified as potentially contaminated. Mr Pearson highlighted that this was not part of the site that would be developed if planning permission was approved.

Councillor Quentin Webb noted Mrs Reed’s concern about the access to the site. There was an indoor riding school nearby and Councillor Webb asked if this used the same access. Mrs Reed was unable to clarify this point.

Councillor Webb stated that houses on the site must use the road currently, however Mrs Reed stated that she was concerned about the potential for two cars per property.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe questioned if there were would be an increase in traffic to and from the site and the Chairman confirmed that this was a question for Officers.

Gareth Dowding stated it was expected that there would be an increase in traffic flow which was why they had insisted that visibility splays be implemented. It was confirmed that Officers were not overly concerned about the increase to traffic flow, which would result in up to an anticipated four extra vehicles.

Councillor Emma Webster questioned the length of time (two months) that it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

29.

Appeal Decisions relating to Eastern Area Planning pdf icon PDF 39 KB

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

Minutes:

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.