Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 9^th March and 30^th March 2022.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 9^th and 30^th March 2022 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Minutes from 9^th March 2022, page six, item two – Declarations of Interest: Councillor Geoff Mayes confirmed that he was a member of BBOWT (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxon Wildlife Trust ).

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.

Councillor Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(2) but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Pask stated that he would stand down as Chairman for both items, which would be chaired by the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Alan Macro.

All Members of the Committee declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) but reported that, as their interest was a personal, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they were determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3) but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member and therefore knew a considerable number of people who lived in Midgham and Woolhampton and had been canvassed on the item. Councillor Pask stated that he was predisposed on the item but had not predetermined it).

(Vice-Chairman, Councillor Alan Macro in the Chair)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/03028/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for the erection of 16 dwellings, including 6 affordable units, with access from Bath Road. Matters to be considered: Access.

Mr Matthew Shepherd (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the report and highlighted the key points.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Anthony Fenn, (Midgham) Parish Council representative, Mr Matthew Partridge, objector, Mr Douglas Bond, agent and Councillor Graham Pask, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Fenn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• An outline application for 16 dwellings on the site had been refused on 23^rd January 2020. The proposed application was considered to be contrary to the current development plan and not deemed an appropriate development in the countryside.
• Midgham Parish Council (MPC) objected to the original application and saw no reason to alter its decision for the resurrected and identical application.
• MPC objected to the application on the following grounds; it was a development in the countryside; it was outside of the settlement boundary and it was an unfortunate example of unwanted urbanisation.
• MPC also objected to the potential inclusion of the site in the West Berkshire Local Plan Review to 2037.
• The two acre green field site was outside of any defined settlement boundary and was adjacent to ancient woodland. The area was currently used as a paddock. There was a Tree Preservation Order on a tree to the east side of the site.
• The south east corner of the site was of special interest in relation to ecological diversity. A significant part of the southern area would be destroyed by the new access to the proposal if approved.
• MPC was concerned that the erection of 16 dwellings would have a detrimental impact upon the ancient woodlands along the west and east boundaries and this formed part of the East Kennet Valley biodiversity opportunity area.
• The Core Strategy required biodiversity assets such as the site in question to be conserved.
• The site was approximately 500 metres from the Woolhampton reed beds and the River Kennet’s site for special scientific interest with protected species present.
• The residents of Midgham and Woolhampton were not strangers to the risk and consequences of flooding. There was concern that the development of the site would reduce the natural infiltration and result in a higher risk of flooding to properties nearby.
• MPC was not reassured by the comments raised by Thames Water as they had been unable to determine the waste water infrastructure needs of the application. Thames Water  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(1)

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member and therefore knew a considerable number of people who lived in Midgham and Woolhampton and had been canvassed on the item. Councillor Pask stated that he was predisposed on the item but had not predetermined it).

(All Members of the Committee declared an interest in Agenda 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the two Adjacent Parish Council representatives were also Members of West Berkshire Council and were therefore well known to them. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Vice-Chairman, Councillor Alan Macro in the Chair)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) in respect of an Outline Application for a commercial B2 (general industrial) and/or B8 (storage and distribution) development together with ancillary office space and associated landscaping, car parking, service yards and access. Matters to be considered: Access.

Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and highlighted the key points.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Anthony Fenn, Midgham Parish Council representative, Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter and Owen Jeffery, Adjacent Parish Council representatives (Thatcham Town Council), Tracey Underwood, objector, Mr James Walker, Agent and Councillor Graham Pask, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Fenn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Midgham Parish Council (MPC) objected to the application on the following grounds; it was a development in the countryside; it was outside of the settlement boundary and it was a disturbing piece of ribbon development.

·         The core plan stated that due to Thatcham’s recent expansion there should be a considerable period of consolidation resulting in no immediate and no significant growth in the area. However the application proposed an industrial expansion into rural Midgham beyond the settlement boundary.

·         A recent planning permission for housing in Midgham was refused on the grounds that the area was a rural parish outside of any recognised settlement area. Consequently MPC was alarmed at the rate of the destruction of prime agricultural land; the loss of Midgham’s identifiable boundary and the disturbing prospect of setting a precedent for further continued ribbon development.

·         MPC understood the applicant was requested to consider reducing the height of the buildings in areas one and two from 15 metres to 12.5 metres. The applicant refused this request claiming that the extra height was required for the installation and use of warehouse automation.

·         MPC felt that the extra eight feet above the tree line would have an adverse visual impact on the 15 households located to the east of Midgham Marsh.

·         The report predicted up to 980 traffic movements per day to be generated by the proposal. These would be exiting and entering the already busy A4.

·         MPC were concerned that the extra traffic movements and the utilisation of robots in the warehouses strongly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(2)

This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Eastern Area Planning Committee.