Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 19^th February 2020.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19^th February 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Page 8, Application No. & Parish: 19/02700/HOUSE – Clifton House, Upper Basildon, under the debate, sixth paragraph to read as follows:

Councillor Bridgman commented on the point made in the report that the roof lights that were in place on the second floor, although not shown on the plans for the previously approved applications, did not materially affect the appearance of the dwelling and planning permission would not have been required for them. He disagreed and submitted that, as discussed with Mr Dray earlier in the meeting, the previous planning permission made it explicitly clear that the roof lights did require planning permission and were not permitted development.  He said that this application for dormer windows in a third storey was not acceptable. He seconded the proposal to refuse planning permission.

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 19/02333/FULD in respect of the retention of existing house, demolition of existing barn building and greenhouse. There would be a division of the plot to allow for the construction of a new family dwelling and double garage. There would be a double garage outbuilding for the existing house and associated works to the driveway.

Mr Bob Dray, Team Leader – Development Control, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The site was located partly within the defined settlement boundary and partly outside the settlement boundary.

·         The previous application for the site had been for a large two storey house and had been dismissed at appeal on 20th June 2019. The main reasons for the dismissal were the impact on the character and appearance, and amenity.

·         The current application had been referred by the Development Control Manager as the proposal was a departure from the Development Plan. It was only being recommended for approval because the Inspector had not objected to the previous development in principle.

·         Officers were satisfied that issues relating to the character and appearance had been addressed in the new application.

·         It was felt that objections regarding the previous application and any technical issues had been overcome. Officers felt that the application was justifiable in a way that did not undermine the Development Plan.

·         In considering all elements of the application, Officers were recommending approval of the proposal.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Brenda Kerr Muir, Parish Council representative, Mike Milton, agent, and Councillor Gareth Hurley, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Ms Brenda Kerr Muir in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

She was representing Pangbourne Parish Council and declared that she had lived on the same road as the application site, only quarter of a mile away. She had met the applicant on one occasion ten years ago.

Pangbourne Parish Council had not raised an objection to the application however, had raised a number of comments.

Part of the site fell outside of the settlement boundary however, there was a clear question regarding where the historical village boundary laid.

If the historical boundary was taken into account the whole of the site would be included within the boundary.

The new application had been adapted to reflect changes following the previously submitted application, which was refused by the Planning Inspector.

The Parish Council felt that it was a modest proposal for the site within the village of Pangbourne. 

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Graham Pask queried the historical boundary Ms Kerr Muir was referring to and asked her to clarify if she was referring to the red line shown on the maps. Ms Kerr Muir confirmed that this was correct. Councillor Alan Law stated that what Ms Kerr Muir was referring to was a village boundary and not a settlement boundary. A village boundary was not a planning consideration. Councillor Pask attempted to further clarify the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/02947/FULD in respect of a new 4 bed dwelling to the side of Maple Corner including new access, hardstanding and landscaping.

Ms Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The main consideration that was required was regarding the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

·         Page 42 of the report provided details on a new access (1.8) that was included as part of the proposal. West Berkshire Council’s Highways Department had raised no objections to the application (subject to planning conditions) and there were no concerns regarding the removal of trees and hedges that would be required along Aldworth Road, if the application was approved.

·         Members had raised a number of queries at the site visit and details were included within the update report. Members had requested details of a previously refused application (Sykes Gardens). The application had been refused by the Local Planning Authority and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate for reasons of highway safety relating to the access.

·         Members had also been concerned that the site measurements did not accord with the measurements on the submitted plans. The case officer had manually carried out checks on the measurements on site and the query was also raised with the agent who had also confirmed the site measurements were correct. Further information was detailed in the update report. 

·         Apart from the Parish Council none of the statutory consultees had objected to the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Anna Wakeman, objector, and Councillor Alan Law, Ward Member, addressed the committee on the application.

Objector Representations:

Ms Wakeman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Ms Wakeman lived at Wellesley House, which was located behind the proposed cottage.

·                    Ms Wakeman was concerned about trees on the site and road safety.

·                    Highways had raised no objections to the proposal however, had not visited the site to carry out a road assessment.

·                    Aldworth Road had a speed limit of 30mph however, few drivers actually adhered to the speed limit and the site was located near to a blind corner. The road was dangerous for cyclists and horse riders.

·                    The proposed access would add to the danger of the blind bend.

·                    Number five Sykes Gardens had requested permission for an additional access in 2010 however, this had been refused because there was no area to turnaround. Ms Wakeman understood that changes had been made to the recent application however, in her view these did not address the issues the Highway’s Officer had been trying to avoid in 2010.

·                    Objections had been raised by the Tree Officer and changes had been made to alleviate these concerns however, in Ms Wakeman’s view virtually no changes had actually been made when comparing to the original plan.

·                    A large lime and oak tree would be largely impacted upon by the development. There was also a tree to the back of Wellesley House that would be at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.(2)