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

Agenda and minutes

Contact: Stephen Chard / Jessica Bailiss 

Media

Items
No. Item

14.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 511 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 25th August 2021.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25th August 2021 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

15.

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:

Councillor Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as his interest was a non-prejudicial personal interest and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

 

16.

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.)

16.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 21/01390/HOUSE - The Old Travellers Rest, Hungerford Lane, Bradfield Southend pdf icon PDF 338 KB

Proposal:

Section 73 variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of approved 20/00852/HOUSE - Demolition of three unsafe timber outbuildings, construction of a replacement timber car port/garage, two single storey extensions to the rear of the building, single storey extension

to the side of the building and alterations including modifications and replacement of windows.

Location:

The Old Travellers Rest, Hungerford Lane, Bradfield Southend, RG7 6JP

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs Bearman

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director (Development & Regulation) to grant planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01390/HOUSE in respect of Section 73 variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of approved 20/00852/HOUSE - Demolition of three unsafe timber outbuildings, construction of a replacement timber car port/garage, two single storey extensions to the rear of the building, single storey extension to the side of the building and alterations including modifications and replacement of windows.

Mr Bob Dray (Team Leader – Development Control) introduced the item and highlighted the key points within the report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andrew House, Parish Council representative and Mr Nigel Bearman (agent) addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr House in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

  • There had been a number interventions by the West Berkshire Council Enforcement Team due to discrepancies to the original planning permission.
  • Bradfield Parish Council had been advised by parishioners that the building did not match the approved plans.
  • The application sought to regularise only three of the issues raised, including access to the building, the introduction of a hipped roof and the introduction of roof lights.    
  • The Parish Council felt that having the access to the ancillary use element of the proposal in the north elevation, nearer to the main dwelling was a more sensible position.
  • The hipped roof was welcomed as it reduced the bulky appearance of the proposal. It was however felt that it made the proposal seem more ‘house’ like rather than the outbuilding it reported to be.
  • The removal of the two roof lights raised questions about what the future use might be.
  • The Parish Council was concerned regarding the original application in terms of the proposed size and intended use. Being of an oak frame structure, even though timber cladding was proposed, the Parish Council had felt that the proposal was in keeping as an outbuilding within the North Wessex Down Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB) and not as a base for a new house in the countryside, which was very much contrary to West Berkshire Council policy.
  • Mr House stated that interestingly the drawing submitted for the section 73 application stated ‘Oak Frame Structure’. There was now however, reference to a single dividing support between the two car port bays.
  • The ground floor plan still clearly showed the positioning of the wooden structure throughout and not the fully insulated cavity wall, concrete block structure that had been built. Mr House queried how the case officer could recommend approval when the plans did not reflect what had been built.
  • The Parish Council noted the suggested conditions. There was confusion regarding condition one as ‘drawing 2006 – P14A’ appeared twice but with different title descriptions.
  • The Parish Council requested that condition four be amended and extended in line with a number of ancillary use approvals given locally in both Bradfield and the adjoining parish. The additional sentence to read ‘The car port garage building shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.(1)

17.

Application No. & Parish: 21/01358/HOUSE - Thatchers, Road known as Broad Lane, Chapel Row pdf icon PDF 338 KB

Proposal:

Demolish existing rear extension, construct new single storey rear extension and 2 storey side/rear extension, construct new garage block with office/games room above and a single storey link to main house

Location:

Thatchers, Road known as Broad Lane, Chapel Row, RG7 6PB

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs Hudson

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director (Development & Regulation) to grant planning permission

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the he knew the applicant and objector as they were residents of Bucklebury where he lived. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/01358/HOUSE in respect of demolishing an existing rear extension, construct new single storey rear extension and 2 storey side/rear extension, construct new garage block with office/games room above and a single storey link to main house.

Mr Bob Dray (Team Leader – Development Control) introduced the item and highlighted the key points within the report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Edward Mather on behalf of Mr Bill Bucknell, Objectors and Mr Simon Hudson, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representations:

Mr Mather in behalf of Mr Bucknell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Mather was an architect at Colony Architects and was a friend of Mr Bucknell who lived at Oakley next door the proposal. Mr Bucknell was away and therefore had asked by Mather to speak on his behalf.

·         Mr Bucknell had written a letter on the 15th July and Mr Mather stated that he would reiterate the main points set out in the letter.

·         Overall Mr Bucknell was supportive of the principle of extending the house and offering an ancillary garage or incidental accommodation.

·         For a number of reasons it was felt that the scale of the proposal would cause overdevelopment on the site and would negatively impact upon the setting and Mr Bucknell’s property.

·         It was felt that the proposed rear of the extension would be an improvement and was supported as the modern extension would be removed and this would improve the appearance of the house.

·         The issue was regarding the ancillary accommodation to the side and front of the property. The site was within the countryside and within the North Wessex Down Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB) and although house extensions were permitted Mr Mather quoted they needed to have ‘no adverse impact on the setting, the space occupied within the plot boundaries, on the local rural character, historic interest or the building and its setting within the wider landscape’.

·         The site was positioned at the end of the Avenue, which was a distinctive local landscape feature central to the unique character of Chapel Row.

·         The site was to the north of the Avenue and faced the green. It held a prominent position and was clearly observable from the public space. Any proposal should be carefully designed to not negatively impact the setting and landscape.

·         It should be noted that back in 2005 a similar application in height and scale was refused. It was for a garage to the west of the property and was refused because of its harmful impact on the AONB,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

Application No. & Parish: 21/01481/HOUSE - Oakingham House, Bere Court Road, Pangbourne pdf icon PDF 340 KB

Proposal:

The proposal consists of two main parts. Firstly, to convert the current indoor pool to create a kitchen, dining and family room area within ancillary storage areas to include boot and utility space. Above a subservient first floor extension, we propose to form two bedrooms with en suites with associated dressing areas and covered balcony. Secondly, we propose a single storey extension to the current outbuilding courtyard to create a gym.

Location:

Oakingham House, Bere Court Road, Pangbourne, RG8 8JU

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs J Ray Snr

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director (Development & Regulation) to grant planning permission.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Agenda Item 4(3), Planning Application 21/01481/HOUSE was deferred to the subsequent meeting of the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 6th October 2021, due to technical issues.