Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 16^th January 2019.

Councillor Alan Law opened the meeting by announcing that Jean Gardner, Chairman of Tilehurst Parish Council and a former District Councillor, had suddenly passed away earlier that week. He advised that a minute’s silence would be held at the upcoming Full Council meeting and he wished to recognise the big contribution that Jean had made to the community.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Item 47 (1), Page 12, fifth bullet point: to be amended to read “Councillor Law questioned the lack of a detailed discussion on the viability appraisal.”

Item 47 (1), Page 12, third paragraph: to be amended to read “Councillor Bridgman asked whether or not the repairs and restoration works proposed would meet the listed building requirements. Cheryl Willett answered in the affirmative.”

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 Richard Crumly declared an interest in Agenda Item (1) and Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared an interest in Agenda Item (2), but reported that, as their interests were 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.

Councillor Richard Crumly declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Thatcham Town Council and the Planning and Highways Committee. He had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. As his interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02866/HOUSE in respect of a retrospective application for the erection of a two storey side extension at 8 Alexander Road, Thatcham.

David Pearson introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justified. He recommended that the tense of the wording of the proposed condition one be amended to recognise that the application was retrospective.  Officers recommended the Committee grant conditional planning permission.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Emma Tompkins, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/ agent Representation

Ms Tompkins in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Town Council had expressed concern regarding the devaluation of property in the area. This was not her intention as it made no economic sense. Property values were not a planning issue.

·                    There were also concerns expressed regarding a terracing effect. Ms Tompkins reported that there was previously a single storey extension with a flat roof on the site which ended 30cm from the boundary on her property and on her neighbour’s property. Planning permission for the two storey extension was sought prior to moving into the property. When she employed an architect to draw plans, he recommended using existing foundations closer to the boundary line.

·                    A precedent for small gaps between properties had already been set by other houses on the road.

Questions from Members

Councillor Pamela Bale asked whether the Planning Authority had been consulted prior to construction. Ms Tompkins stated that she had been badly advised; she originally thought that the extension had been built as described in the planning permission. It was only when neighbours raised the issue that she realised it had not. The builder had not been aware of the issue as he had only seen the building plans prepared by the architect and not the plans submitted as part of the planning application.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that plan 102b showed a small wall between Ms Tompkins’ property and her neighbour. He enquired what had happened to that wall. Ms Tompkins could not confirm but believed it was now part of the garage.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked if an objection had been submitted by the neighbour whose property abutted the applicant’s. Ms Tompkins confirmed it had not.

Councillor Richard Crumly raised a query regarding the neighbour’s extension. Ms Tompkins advised that there had already been a single  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.(1)

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he owned farmland adjacent to the site but he considered that the application had no bearing on his property. As his interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/02930/HOUSE in respect of a proposed part single storey, part two storey rear extension to the existing single family dwelling house at Purley Lodge Cottage, Purley Lane, Purley.

David Pearson introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Fred Guttfield, applicant/ agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/ agent Representation

Mr Guttfield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The extension had been sensitively designed to convert an unattractive outbuilding.

·                     The house was not in a conservation area, a listed building or in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·                     No objections had been raised by neighbours or statutory consultees. There had been three letters of support.

·                     The applicant had grown up in Purley.

·                     The extension would be subservient to the main house as it had a lower ridge height and was set back; Mr Guttfield refuted that the proposal was dominant and bulky.

·                     Extensions had been permitted in the area which has more of an impact.

·                     Materials would be used which reflected the edge of village location.

·                     The officers’ recommendation contradicted pre-application advice provided by the Planning Authority.

Questions from Members

Councillor Richard Crumly asked why timber cladding was proposed to create a barn like appearance when in his view brick would be more attractive. Mr Guttfield advised that different materials would reflect the edge of village location and similar nearby properties.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked if the roof pitch would be the same as the main house. Mr Guttfield advised that they were similar but heights had been restricted as far as possible and it had been sought to tie in eaves with the existing house.

Councillor Graham Bridgman questioned the statement that the extension would replace an unattractive outbuilding given that it could not be seen from the road at present but the extension would be visible.

Ward Member representation

Councillor Tim Metcalfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     His fellow Ward Member, Councillor Rick Jones, had sent apologies because he lived adjacent to the site and therefore had a prejudicial interest.

·                     No objections had been raised with Councillor Metcalfe directly.

·                     The applicant had queried why the recommendation differed from the pre application advice and officers had advised that they could not account for other parts of the Council raising objections.

·                     The proposed extension  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.(2)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/02628/LBC2 in respect of an application to facilitate the safe and permanent removal of the extensive asbestos that exists in the ground and first floors and to enable access to the 15th/16th century vaults below the ground floor. It was proposed to replace the existing wood veneer floor in the drawing room with new oak floorboards and to improve the appearance of the interiors of the dining room and study, the relatively new existing pine floorboards would be replaced with new solid oak boards. The address of the application was  at Bere Court, Pangbourne.

David Pearson introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justified. Officers recommended the Committee grant conditional planning permission.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter McHugh de Clare and Mr James Mackintosh, applicant/ agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/ agent Representation

Mr McHugh de Clare and Mr Mackintosh in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The house had a tremendous history and it was intended to restore and repair, not remodel or extend.

·                     There was asbestos in the basement and specialist firms had advised that it was not possible to remove it without removing the floor.

·                     The house would not be suitable for occupation without the removal of the asbestos.

·                     Studies had confirmed that the floor was late 19^th Century and of poor veneer which had been damaged by sanding and water in the past.

Questions from Members

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted a request in a letter of objection to replace the floor with a similar material, whilst the case officer’s report recommended that the floor be replaced with oak floorboards to resemble the original floor. He asked what flooring would have been in the house originally. Mr Mackintosh advised that a wider oak plank floor would have been the original flooring and it was proposed to use a straight grained oak through several floors. This material was consistent with materials used in houses of similar age and status.

Councillor Bridgman enquired upon the width of the proposed floorboards. Mr Mackintosh advised that he had spent a year contacting  timber suppliers and it was difficult to find a product that was of an appropriate quality. Around 80% of the oak would be rift cut with 20% quartersawn. The maximum width that could be achieved was 230mm wide, this would be used in the 18^th Century parts of the house. Narrower boards at between 120mm and 130mm would be used in more modern parts of the house.

Ward Member representation

Councillor Pamela Bale in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     Bere Court was the only Grade 1 listed building in Pangbourne and local residents had been concerned that there might be an impact on its listed status.

·                     There had been queries  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.(3)