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

Agenda and minutes

Venue: No room required. View directions

Contact: Stephen Chard / Jessica Bailiss 

Note: This meeting can be viewed at www.westberks.gov.uk/easternareaplanninglive 

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of the Chairman

To elect the Chairman of the Eastern Area Planning Committee for the 2020/21 Municipal Year.

Minutes:

Stephen Chard invited Members of the Eastern Area Planning Committee to nominate and vote on the position of Chairman for the coming year.

RESOLVED that Councillor Alan Law be elected as Chairman of the Eastern Area Planning Committee for the 2020/21 Municipal Year.

2.

Election of the Vice-Chairman

To elect the Vice-Chairman of the Eastern Area Planning Committee for the 2020/21 Municipal Year.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Members of the Eastern Area Planning Committee to nominate and vote on the position of Vice-Chairman for the coming year.

RESOLVED that Councillor Alan Macro be elected Vice-Chairman of the Eastern Area Planning Committee for the 2020/21 Municipal Year.

3.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 141 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 11 March 2020.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

4.

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:

There were no declarations of interest received.

5.

Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 5 MB

(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.)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman explained that there would be a single debate for agenda items 6(1) and 6(2). These two applications sought planning permission and listed building consent for the same site, West Streatley House. There would however be two separate votes on the items.

5.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 20/00221/HOUSE - West Streatley House, High Street, Streatley pdf icon PDF 118 KB

Proposal:

Demolition of side extension (utility room) and the rebuilding of the extension to be more in keeping with the architectural style of the main house.

Location:

West Streatley House, High Street, Streatley

Applicant:

Anita Parratt c/o Maria Peralta, Project Design Studio Ltd

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered two reports (Agenda Items 6(1) and 6(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00221/HOUSE in respect of the demolition of the side extension (utility room) and the rebuilding of the extension to be more in keeping with the architectural style of the main house and concerning Planning Application 20/00222/LBC2 which sought listed building consent.

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

·           The application site was located in the defined settlement boundary of Streatley. The principle of the extension was acceptable subject to compliance with the relevant adopted policies.

·           The Conservation Officer had commented that the existing single storey extension was unsympathetic to the main dwelling for a number of reasons. The Conservation Officer therefore raised no objections to the principle of replacing the existing extension with an improved extension that removed existing issues.

·           The applicant’s motivation for the proposed demolition and rebuilding of the side extension was not a material planning consideration. This application needed to be considered on its own merits.

·           Additional conditions were proposed in the update report for the granting of listed building consent as requested by the Conservation Officer.

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from Mr Lloyd Jenkins, objector, and Ms Maria Peralta, agent. These submissions related to both applications.

Written submissions were read out by the Clerk to the Committee:

Objector Representation

The written submission of Mr Jenkins was read out as follows:

·           This was a joint submission by 11 separate households of local residents who objected to the applications. Mr Jenkins acted as signatory on their behalf.

·           The objectors had reviewed the committee reports prepared by Ms Lucinda Pinhorne-Smy and made the following further representations to the Members of the Committee:

a. The Planning Officer had rightly dismissed the applicant’s stated primary motivation for these applications – namely to gain temporary access to the rear of the property for building works – as not being a valid basis for planning consent.

b. However, rather than reject the applications on this fundamental basis, the Planning Officer continued to review secondary proposals for minor works to the extension itself. Clearly, the scope of these works did not require the entire extension, a listed building, to be fully demolished and rebuilt; a purpose serving only to achieve the (irrelevant) access described above. As such, objectors did not believe enough emphasis was placed on the excessive nature of the proposals to demolish and rebuild the extension, given only the ancillary works to it.

c. The Committee had a duty to consider the wider impact of individual applications. In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(1)

5.(2)

Application No. & Parish: 20/00222/LBC2 - West Streatley House, High Street, Streatley pdf icon PDF 134 KB

Proposal:

Demolition of side extension (utility room) and the rebuilding of the extension to be more in keeping with the architectural style of the main house.

Location:

West Streatley House, High Street, Streatley

Applicant:

Anita Parratt c/o Maria Peralta, Project Design Studio Ltd

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant listed building consent.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The debate and resolution for Agenda Item 6(2), concerning Planning Application 20/00222/LBC2 which sought listed building consent, was contained within Agenda Item 6(1).

5.(3)

Application No. & Parish: 19/02522/FUL - Church View Barn, Back Lane, Stanford Dingley pdf icon PDF 164 KB

Proposal:

The demolition of the existing stable block and the construction of a three-bay replacement garage building with adjoining log store, alongside associated parking, access and landscaping works and the change of use of the land to a residential use.

Location:

Church View Barn, Back Lane, Stanford Dingley, RG7 6LR

Applicant:

Ms C Garbutt

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 6(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/02522/FUL in respect of the demolition of a side extension (utility room) and the rebuilding of the extension to be more in keeping with the architectural style of the main house.

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

·         The application had been brought to Committee due to the level of objections and because Officers were recommending permission be granted.

·         The application site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and had no settlement Boundary.

·         The table on page 43 of the report showed comparative dimensions between the existing stable block and proposed building, which highlighted the increase in scale.

·         Originally there had been plans to site a larger building to the west of the site against the boundary. There had however, been concerns raised about the loss of amenity to number five and that it had been positioned directly opposite the listed building. The design of the previous scheme had been considered to be bulky in the proposed position and was slightly taller the current proposal at 3.98 metres height.

·         Regarding the change of use, there was no record of the western end of the site having consent for residential use, hence the proposed change of use was incorporated into this application.

·         The main issues with the application were set out within the report and because the site was outside of the settlement, Planning Policy C6 applied to the application. This policy ensured extensions built in the countryside were subservient to a main dwelling.

·         In the view of Officers the scaling and size of the proposal was subservient to the main dwelling. It would replace a building that was similar in scale.

·         Officers were content regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity and that separation distances were acceptable. Any issues regarding the impact on amenity to number five relating to the previous proposal had been overcome. Any concerns raised by the Conservation Officer had also been overcome.

·         Regarding the extension of the curtilage in the countryside this would ordinarily conflict with Planning Policy C8. However, based on evidence that was consistent with comments in the representations, the area in question had been used as a garden for at least ten years. This would mean that its use as a garden was immune from enforcement action.  The ability for the applicant’s to make a Lawful Development Certificate was therefore a material consideration for this application, including the ability to remove permitted development rights to conserve local character, and this outweighed the conflict in the view of Planning Officers.

·         Regarding the update report, there had been no further representations received. The recommendation regarding the commencement condition had been amended to account for the change of use being retrospective. There was an additional condition to ensure the pedestrian gates were provided before the garage was brought into use.

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(3)