Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18^th October 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18^th October 2017 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

Item 27 (1) Application 17/02012/FULD:

Page 7, second paragraph after first set of bullet points to read as follows: Mr Leedale stated that the units closest to Tidmarsh Lane had been reduced in size and by one unit.

Page 7, first paragraph to read as follows: Mrs Cuthbert responded that they had chosen not to report the issue as they felt the complaint would not be acted upon.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe stated that Cheryl Willett had reported that she had negotiated with the applicant over the sum of money for affordable housing. Councillor Metcalfe felt that this figure and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) amount should be included within the minutes. Officers could not recall a CIL amount being discussed however, agreed to add detail on the affording housing figure, which was £450k.

Councillor Metcalfe was of the view that Members had agreed that action should be taken to tidy up the site. David Pearson recalled this being discussed however did not recall that Members had stated a resolution to this affect. 

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 Pamela Bale declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), and reported that, as her interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest, she would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillor Emma Webster declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she voted against the outline planning application (15/03320/OUTMAJ). As she had pre-determined the decision on the application she would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter. Councillor Bale stated however, that she would still make a representation as Ward Member. Councillor Bale left the meeting at 6.40pm.)

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that the objectors, Mr J.G.F Dawson and his wife, were known to her. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she 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 17/01540/RESMAJ in respect of reserved matters following outline planning permission 15/03320/OUTMAJ.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Higgs, Parish Council representative, Mr J Dawson, objector, and Mr Douglas Bond, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr John Higgs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was concerned regarding the entrance to the site and queried why the visibility splay length of 43 metres was still being shown within the report. According to the outline application that was approved, visibility splays should be 63 metres and 72 metres in length.

·         There were no cycle tracks close to the site and therefore any reference to cycle tracks should be discarded. The Thames path could not be used as a cycle track as it was a footpath.

·         Mr Higgs disagreed that there was a regular two hourly bus service that served the area. There were buses at 11am, 1pm and 6pm and this could not be considered as a frequent service. The service also no longer served the Whitchurch Hill area.

·         Although the highway that was used to access the site had a 30mph speed limit, many vehicles travelled at 60mph and therefore visibility splays should be increased to 90metres.

·         The footpath from the site to the village was not clear from the plans. Pedestrians would have to cross the road by the church, which was considered to be far to narrow.

·         Originally Thames Water had stated that the sewage network would not be able to support the new development however, Thames Water now seemed to be satisfied with the application. Mr Higgs wanted to know what had changed in terms of the sewage system, which meant that it could now support the development.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked if the entrance to the site was used solely for the estate. Mr Higgs stated that the entrance had been used by Southern Electric over the years and also by a local farmer however, the farmer mainly used the tracks rather than travelling over the fields.

Mr J Dawson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(1)

(Councillor Pamela Bale rejoined the meeting at 740pm)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02446/FULD in respect of the demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of two new dwellings.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Paul Smith, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Paul Smith in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr Smith and his wife lived at Hamstead House, which was opposite the application site.

·                    He asked that Members reject the application as it would be detrimental to the rural street scene and the individual homes that surrounded it, which included some thatched properties.

·                    There had been an appeal against a decision taken to refuse development of three dwellings on the Claregate site, which was a site to the south of the Moorings site and this had been allowed on appeal. West Berkshire Council had refused the application on grounds, which were now being given to approve the site at Pamber Green.

·                    Mr Smith was not satisfied with the density of the screening proposed on the eastern edge of the site or alongside the Listed building, Moorings.

·                    The size of the properties was not acceptable. They would be in view from the adjacent road, surrounding dwellings and open fields to the north and west. The dwellings would also be elevated making them more prominent.

·                    Due to the position of plot one on higher ground, landscaping could not be used to soften its impact upon the Moorings. The report stated that adequate would reduce the impact on the setting of the Moorings and this statement in Mr Smiths’ opinion highlighted that there was a problem.

·                    Mr Smith stated that if the application was approved there were four areas he would like to see included:

-       Demolition restrictions

-       The exclusion of bonfires due to risk to close by thatched properties

-       A restriction on the installation of air handling and heat exchange plant

-       Restrictions on hours of work

·                    Mr Smith urged the Committee to refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined above.

Councillor Alan Law asked for clarification on the Claregate case. Mr Smith explained that it had involved a single storey property on the other side of the Moorings at the southern side of the application site being demolished and replaced with three dwellings..  The application was refused and then approved at appeal.

Councillor Richard Crumly referred to Mr Smith’s description of the character of the area including that there were thatched properties. He thought that residents might have been pleased to see the existing bungalow removed as it was not in a very good state. Mr Smith stated that he had no objection to the principle of developing the site. However, it was the design of the proposed dwellings which was a concern. He felt that the dwellings should sit lighter within the site and due to their prominence it would set a poor precedent if the application was approved.

Councillor Keith Chopping noted Mr Smith’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.