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

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury

Contact: Stephen Chard / Jessica Bailiss 

Items
No. Item

3.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 456 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 April and 4 May 2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meetings held on 21 April 2021 and 4 May 2021 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Chairman.

4.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 304 KB

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

(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.)

5.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 20/03068/FULD - Button Court Farm, Windmill Lane, Midgham pdf icon PDF 256 KB

Proposal:

Erection of a farm owner's dwelling and garage with associated access.

Location:

Button Court Farm, Windmill Lane, Midgham, Reading, RG7 5TY

Applicant:

Mr A Inwood

Recommendation:

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/03068/FULD in respect of erection of a farm owner's dwelling and garage with associated access.

Planning Officer, Mr Bob Dray introduced the report and highlighted the key points. The detailed assessment was set out in the agenda report. No objections had been raised by Midgham Parish Council and no objections had been received on technical grounds. There were eleven supporters to the application. 

Members were shown the application site of the proposed barns (20/03069/FUL – pending consideration) located on the eastern side of the track.

Supporting financial information had been provided to Members in a Part II confidential report and there was no dispute with the figures. 

There were two main issues with the application, which were the principle of the development and the impact on the character and openness of the area.  Policy C1 of the HSA DPD gave a presumption against new residential development outside of the settlement boundaries. Exceptions to this were limited to some forms of development, one of which was housing to accommodate rural workers. New dwellings in the countryside related to, and located at or near, a rural enterprise would be permitted where:

i.     It was proven as essential to the continuing use of land and buildings for agriculture, forestry or a rural enterprise;

ii.    Detailed evidence was submitted showing the relationship between the proposed housing and the existing or proposed rural enterprise and demonstrating why the housing was required for a full time worker in that location;

iii.   It was demonstrated that there were no suitable alternative dwellings available or that could be made available in that location to meet the need. This included those being used as tourist or temporary accommodation or existing buildings suitable for residential conversion;

iv.   It must be shown why the housing need could not be met by existing or proposed provision within existing settlement boundaries;

v.    The financial viability of the business was demonstrated to justify temporary or permanent accommodation;

vi.   The size, location and nature of the proposed dwelling was commensurate with the needs of the enterprise; and well related to existing farm buildings or associated dwellings;

vii.  The development had no adverse impact on the rural character and heritage assets of the area and its setting within the wider landscape. Where it affected the AONB the impact on its special qualities and natural beauty of the landscape would be the overriding consideration;

viii.    No dwelling serving or associated with the rural enterprise had been either sold or converted from a residential use or otherwise separated from the holding within the last 10 years. The act of severance might override the evidence of need.

The Council had instructed Kernons Countryside Consultants Limited to review and provide independent analysis as to the need for the proposed rural workers dwelling. Kernons reviewed the application documents and supporting statement of need which had informed the Officer’s recommendations as detailed in the report.

According to the application, there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(1)

5.(2)

Application No. & Parish: 20/01895/COMIND - Land west of Anchor Van Centre, Bath Road, Pips Way, Beenham pdf icon PDF 336 KB

Proposal:

Proposed scaffold hire depot, comprising open storage area, modular office building and car parking, together with means of access off Pips Way, drainage and landscaping.

Location:

Land West Of Anchor Van Centre, Bath Road, Pips Way, Beenham, Reading

Applicant:

Generation (UK) - Mr Clifford

Recommendation:

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/01895/COMIND in respect of a proposed scaffold hire depot, comprising open storage area, modular office building and car parking, together with means of access off Pips Way, drainage and landscaping.

The Planning Officer, Alice Attwood, introduced the report and highlighted the key points.

The reason for referral to Committee by the Development Control Manager was the need to balance economic and environmental considerations in the AONB and the recommendation was for approval of the application.

The site was approximately 1.5 hectares. The proposal was not within the defined settlement boundary and therefore regarded as open countryside for the purposes of planning. The development was within the North Wessex Downs area of AONB which ran along the edge of the A4. The application was located outside of the protected employment area known as the Beenham industrial Site. The site was former landfill which had been restored and in planning terms was considered greenfield land. The site appearance had been left so that some vegetation had reclaimed the land. The majority of the area would be used for storage and there would be an office, 20 car parking spaces for staff, 4 parking spaces for visitors, two electric vehicle charging points and cycle stands for eight bicycles. There were opportunities for sustainable transport with a regular bus route along the A4 and it was near to Aldermaston Railway Station although it was considered that the nature of the use was such that visitors were less likely to make use of public transport. There was also a proposed landscaping on the edge of the site and there was also existing landscaping which would be bolstered up through this proposal.

The modular office building floor area was approximately 250m2 and would house a reception, a kitchen for the drivers, a drying room, staff toilets, office spaces, an open plan area and a Comms room. The application would retain the existing landscaping and the boundary to the north of the site would have a 5 metre strip of trees and shrub planting. To the south of the site the boundary would retain the poplar tree row and additional planting of small trees would be added. A landscape visual assessment had been completed which recommended a strategy which would respond to the minor and moderate visual impacts that would be generated from the scheme. The proposed landscaping scheme would mitigate the effects of the hard standing and it was considered that the landscaping scheme would make it capable of absorbing the proposal into the surrounding site.

The neighbouring properties from the southern boundary of the site were approximately 20 metres away from the application site when including front gardens and approximately 41 metres away if not including front gardens.

The most important policies for determining whether the principle of development was acceptable were Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS9 and CS10 of the Core Strategy:

·         ADPP1 found that most development would be within or adjacent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(2)