Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 4^th August 2021.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 August 2021 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

It was noted that Simon Till’s job title needed to be corrected to Development Control Team Leader.

Item 8(1) – 20/02527/OUTMAJ – Blacks Lake, Paices Hill, Aldermaston

Parish Council Representation (bullet point one, second sentence):

The Case Officer was recommending approval, however it was felt that the decision was based on erroneous assumptions and the full impact on residents was being underplayed.

Member Questions to Officers (fourth paragraph, second sentence):

It was therefore not a unique situation within West Berkshire to have a village with an important freight network running through it.

Debate (first paragraph, fourth sentence):

Councillor Bridgman took on board the substantial amount of work that had taken place in relation to the AWE DEPZ and off site emergency plan and finally in relation to the landscape buffer and the need to encase the site in greenery.

Item 9 – 21/01086/COMIND – The Grange Nursery, 18-21 Church Gate, Thatcham

Member Questions to the Objector (second paragraph, third sentence):

He presumed that there was a commercial lease with a landlord, which was coming to an end and he highlighted that the landlord could choose at that point not to renew the tenancy.

Debate (second paragraph, final sentence):

He supported the proposed use of the site and therefore he was in favour of the application but he recognised the difficulties it caused for the existing business and its users.

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 21/01645/FULD in respect of the demolition of existing house, garage and outbuildings, and the erection of one new house and detached open carport. This was a Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of approved planning permission 20/02001/FULD.

Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the item and highlighted the key points within the report. The recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission. The reason for the application coming before Committee was because in excess of ten objections had been received to the application.

The applicant sought to include a single storey side extension to include a plant room, a rear single storey conservatory/rear extension, and the enlargement of the carport from a single to a double carport. There had been a considerable planning history for this application with a number of appeals made as referred to in the agenda pack. No Environmental Impact Assessment had been required and the application had been publicised in the normal way. Ashampstead Parish Council and Yattendon Parish Council both strongly objected to the application; the Highways Officer had no objections and no objections had been received from the technical consultees. 19 objections had been received from members of the public, as set out in the report, and all were considered to be reasonable planning considerations.

The Committee was asked to appraise this application in terms of the decision-making context, the character and appearance of the site and any impact on neighbouring amenity and highway safety. The report set out in detail exactly what comprised a Section 73 application and it was considered to be the appropriate legislative vehicle for the Council to consider this particular application. In terms of character and appearance, given the application was a variation of the original application, rather than a householder application, the relevant principal policy was Policy C7 (Replacement Dwellings) rather than Policy C6 (Extensions). Officers considered that the application followed the criteria set out in Policy C7 with the overall size of the dwelling taken to approximately 260sqm still within the bounds of being proportionate in relation to the existing dwelling, as demolished, and therefore not so harmful as to merit rejection. In addition, Officers did not consider it would harm the character of the wider AONB. The site was extremely well screened by mature trees which were the subject of a TPO. In terms of the impact on neighbouring amenity, Officers considered the impact would be minimal and therefore in the planning balance and conclusion, as set out in the report, felt the application should be approved.

Mr Butler guided Members to the update sheet in which Ashampstead Parish Council had raised further, legitimate, concerns about the way the builder was developing the current site, for which enforcement Officers had been notified. However, Mr Butler strongly recommended to Members they should only assess the physical merits of the application and not the merits of the builder.

With regard to conditions, Mr Butler advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.(1)

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions for the district.

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.

Mr Butler took the opportunity to update Members following the appeal decision for the Lidl application adjacent to Tadley. He expressed his disappointment that the decision had been made in favour of the applicant on 24/08/21.

It was a major development on a very clear greenfield site and there was no question it was outside settlement boundary. He was disappointed that in the letter the Planning Inspector did not refer to the development plan policies of this district, specifically ADPP1 which was the crux of the case and which the Inspector did not examine in any detail whatsoever.

Essentially, the Inspector felt the landscape visual impact was, on balance, acceptable although he did accept there was conflict with policy. However, he accepted that the retail need was exceptional, not necessarily for the residents of this district, but exceptional for the residents of Basingstoke and Deane. The Inspector spoke about wider sustainability issues and the fact that a lot of residents were travelling to the major centres for discount retail food shopping and that approval of the application would reduce that travelling and those were largely the factors upon which the Inspector had made his decision. Mr Butler said he had every expectation that Lidl would implement the application.

Councillor Law noted that when the Inspector referred to precedent he was talking about immediate sites whereas the Planning Committee had been talking about a precedent of building supermarkets out of town on greenfield sites.