Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 12 December 2012.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 2, and reported that, as his interest was personal and prejudicial, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillors David Allen and Jeff Beck declared an interest in Agenda Item 1, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Hilary Cole, Roger Hunneman and Jeff Beck declared an interest in Agenda Item 2, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Paul Bryant commented that a number of Councillors had been lobbied on Agenda Item 1.

(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).

(Councillor David Allen declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Newbury Town Council Highways and Planning Committee, but had not attended any discussions relating to this matter. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council, but had not taken part in any discussions relating to the matter. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 12/.2395/FUL in respect of the demolition of an existing service station to be redeveloped to provide a new petrol filling station.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Anthony Pick, Parish Council representative, Mrs Fiona Dickens, Mrs Shields and Mr Edward Mason, objectors, and Mr Jonathon Harper, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Anthony Pick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Whilst Newbury Town Council had not objected to the application in principal, it was clear that there would be an impact on local residents and Newbury Town Council did not believe that this had been suitably considered;

·                    Residents felt that comments made to the current operator, in particular around the odour from petrol fumes, and noise from the air conditioning unit installed on the site, had not been listened to;

·                    Park House School was situated opposite the site, and it was believed that there would be an increased risk to the children’s safety from the proposed alterations;

·                    There needed to be improvements made to the lighting arrangements should Members be minded to approve the application;

·                    No proposals had been put forward to deal with litter;

·                    No assurances had been given to local residents as to the effectiveness of remedial measures, for example the acoustic fencing;

·                    No reference had been made to the impact on surrounding shops of the increased size of the retail area;

·                    Mr Pick believed that any objections could have been avoided had an environmental impact assessment taken place and a full consultation process been undertaken with local residents and schools;

·                    Mr Pick did not believe that the application fitted with principles set out in the Council’s Core Strategy, namely that planning should improve the areas in which people live;

·                    Mr Pick was concerned that the original application had apparently been submitted whilst the company was undecided on the location of the site. He advised that other towns in the UK had been mentioned within the application, and this led him to believe that there was no commitment to consider local residents during the development process.

Mr Pick requested that the application be deferred until a full consultation had taken place.

The Chairman asked what difference would have been expected had a full  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.(1)

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she was a member of Chieveley Parish Council where the matter had previously been discussed, however she would apply a fresh view to the information presented, and she was also Portfolio Holder for Environment. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Roger Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew Mr Marriage, an objector. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew Mr Marriage, an objector, well. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor Jeff Beck advised the Committee that he had been lobbied on Agenda item 4(2.))

(20:13: Councillor Vickers left the meeting)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 12/02655/COMIND in respect of the change of use of an industrial unit to include a skip waste recycling and transfer facility.

Councillor Cole highlighted to the Committee that the application was of significant interest to two adjoining parishes of Hermitage and Chieveley and requested that representatives from all three parishes be allowed to speak. Councillor Cole proposed that the Cold Ash representative be allowed five minutes, and the Hermitage and Chieveley representatives be allowed to share a further five minutes. This would result in all speakers having 10 minutes in which to speak. The Chairman put the proposal to the vote and it was carried.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Geoff Findlay (Cold Ash), Mr Mark Kerry (Hermitage) and Mr Rob Crispin (Chieveley), Parish Council representatives, Mr Stewart Wright, Mr Christopher Marriage and Mr Mike Schofield, objectors, and Mr Kevin Parr, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Geoff Findlay in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Waste Local Plan set out the method for the treatment of waste in West Berkshire and the Red Shute location was not mentioned, nor did he believe there was a proven requirement for the additional provision;

·                    Skip clearing facilities were required to comply with environment agency licensing conditions with regard to odour, etc;

·                    The location was on the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Councillor Findlay believed that if the application would not be acceptable in the AONB, then it should not be acceptable in its current location. He reminded the Committee that the Planning Inspector had implied that any waste processes were harmful to the AONB in his decision relating to an incinerator application;

·                    Skip recycling was already available in West Berkshire;

·                    Councillor Findlay was opposed to the development on environmental grounds, because of dust and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 12/02420/FULD in respect of the erection of a single dwelling.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Alison Strong, Parish Council representative, Mr Colin Jackman, objector, and Mr and Mrs Pipikakis, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ms Alison Strong in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Whilst mindful of the Parish Council’s role in enabling appropriate evolution of the village, the application went against the Parish Design Statement and had therefore resulted in strong objection from the Parish Council;

·        Recent debate in the House of Commons had resulted in Local Authorities being able to resist development of gardens;

·        The area in question comprised family homes, built at a similar time with appropriate spacing around them. Some were extended but all were in keeping with each other. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact by reducing the size of the family home and garden at number 20 Manor Crescent;

·        The green space in front of the crescent was used by children to play, and the proposed development would require access across this green space;

·        The application did not meet the needs of Compton;

·        Occupation of the new property was likely to be through lettings, not sale, as the level of mortgage approvals was falling.

Councillor Vickers asked whether there was other detached housing in the road. Ms Strong responded that at one end of the road there were a number of detached bungalows, and at the other a detached house that used to be the police house. None were visible from the crescent.

Mr Colin Jackman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        As the adjoining neighbour Mr Jackman’s family would be particularly affected by the additional property;

·        Whilst extensions were welcomed, the addition of a dwelling was not;

·        Mr Jackman believed that the addition would make his property appear terraced and might therefore affect it’s value;

·        Mr Jackman was concerned that the addition would set a precedent;

·        There was a concern over the capacity of the drainage system to cope with an additional property. The existing drains were understood to be underdeveloped and blockages occurred on occasion;

·        The green area was used as a play area by local children as it was set back from the road. An additional driveway would increase the risk of an accident;

·        Mr Jackman did not believe the current owners had been in residence long enough to accurately assess the use of the area and in particular the green space;

·        The disruption caused by the demolition of the existing structure would cause bad feeling and result in any occupants being unwelcome in the area.

Councillor Hunneman requested clarification regarding access across the green space in front of the site. Mr Jackman responded that the green was owned by the Council, and that in front of this house it was at its deepest so was considered a good area for children to play in.

Mr and Mrs Pipikakis in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 12/02476/FULD in respect of the erection of four dwellings.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andrew Plumridge, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Andrew Plumridge in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Although the site was outside from the settlement boundary, it was not suitable for agriculture and was therefore left unused and did not provide an attractive outlook. If the site had been located within the settlement boundary permission for the development would have been granted;

·        There was a need for affordable housing in the area, and the proposed development would provide this;

·        The development would lift the economy;

·        It had been welcomed by those in the area, and by the Parish Council;

·        The report stated that the Archaeological Officer had objected to the application, but this was not the case;

·        Mr Plumridge believed that if the applicant had been a Housing Association, the site could have been treated as an exception site and been approved. This did not appear fair as it gave a message that development was acceptable but only by certain people;

·        Mr Plumridge’s client wished to help local workers to remain in the village;

·        It was noted that a Heritage Assessment had not been undertaken, but as this would cost a significant sum of money it had been conditioned to be undertaken if the application was approved.

In his capacity as Ward Member, Councillor Rowles raised the following points:

·        The site lay outside the settlement boundary, but was situated alongside other houses;

·        There was a need for small houses in villages, and the willingness of someone to provide those houses should be taken advantage of;

·        The Parish Council had no objections;

·        Another house within the settlement boundary had been approved;

The Chairman asked for clarification as to whether the settlement boundaries would be reconsidered in the future. Derek Carnegie responded that it was likely that a full review would be undertaken within the next 18 months.

Councillor Cole offered the view that there were irrational settlement boundaries across the district, but with a duty to protect the AONB they should be respected. Councillor Cole further expressed her dissatisfaction with the opinion that the site was unsustainable because cycling was not possible, and commented that all villages would have the same issue. She considered that different rules regarding sustainability should be applied to villages and towns.

Councillor Cole proposed that the Officer recommendation to refuse permission be agreed. Councillor von Celsing seconded the proposal.

Councillor Vickers asked whether it was true that only a Housing Association could apply for an exception site. Jake Brown responded that anyone could request an exception site but that certain criteria would need to be fulfilled.

Derek Carnegie suggested that the applicant wait until the planning assessment had been completed. If the site was suitable for development it would be identified.

Councillor Hunneman commented that there was a possibility for the applicant to commence the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Western Area Planning Committee.

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