Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on Wednesday 17^th January 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17^th January 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17.02916 in respect of a proposed first floor extension to the current bungalow and associated alterations. The entire property would be rendered and the existing access widened.

2.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report set out that the development was acceptable and conditional permission was justified due to the large plot and site characteristics. The proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to neighbouring amenity or the character of the area. The proposal accorded with the NPPF (2012) and Policy CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

3.         Amendments to the development had been secured on 18^th December 2017 which included reducing the height of the south wing of the dwelling by 0.9 metres. The windows on both the north and south elevation would be obscure glazed and obscure glazed privacy screens would be erected at both ends of the balcony to ensure that there was no overlooking on neighbouring amenities. The decking and raised terrace had been removed from the proposal.

4.         Collaroy Road was characterised by detached two-storey dwellings in a variety of styles. Dwellings on the east of Collaroy Road predominantly had low hedges and boundary walls on the front boundary. The bungalow was located on a large plot – this plot had been divided into two as planning permission had been granted in 2017 for a new dwelling to the south of Glendale Manor (16/03610/FULD).

5.         The Planning Officer stated that this was a complex design but the application site was in a mixed use area and the dwelling would sit back 2.6m from the road. The land sloped downwards and therefore would not intrude on the street scene. Concerns raised around overdevelopment were unfounded as this was a large plot and two storey developments were common in Collaroy Road. It was considered that the TPO trees on the site would not be affected by the development. The SuDS Officer was confident that the provision would be sufficient.

6.         The Planning Officer felt that all concerns raised in the letters of objection had been resolved. The Committee might want to consider amending Condition 4 in respect of the window on the northern side so that it was fixed closed.

7.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Gillian Hall, Parish Council representative, Mr. Philip Greatrix, objector, and Mr. Stephen Hammond, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

8.         Councillor Gillian Hall in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      Changing a bungalow into a house would not be successful;

·      The roof was a jumble of elevations – it should complement the neighbouring properties but it did not and was an ugly mixture;

·      The large window to the front of the house would be close to the road and there would therefore be a loss of privacy;

·      The balcony would mean  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.(1)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03285/FUL in respect of a section 73A application for variation of Condition 4: External lighting, of planning permission 00/00964/FUL – Construction of three two storey light industrial units in one block of three units at10-12 Old Station Business Park, Compton, Berkshire.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Alison Strong, Parish Council representative, Dr Stephen Knowles and Mrs Rashmi Knowles, objectors, and Mr Matt Fenton, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.         Mrs Strong in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Compton Parish Council welcomed the opportunity to review the application as there were additional requirements to protect residents from light pollution and encroachment.

·         There had been a number of retrospective applications over the 18 year site history.

·         The development would be detrimental to the village street scene.

·         The access road had no road markings and a blind corner so the increased traffic would put school children walking to school at risk of harm.

·         The Parish Council requested:

o   A condition regarding the tilt and hours of operation for the external lighting.

o   Active involvement from Building Control

o   The prior screening condition to be enforced

5.         Councillor Anthony Pick asked for more information regarding the risk of light pollution. Mrs Strong explained that there was light pollution form the existing units that had been built out on the site.

6.         Dr and Mrs Knowles, in addressing the Committee, raised the following points:

·         The site was positioned at a high elevation over the village and any external lighting would be highly visible from the High Street and Compton’s conservation area.

·         They would like no lighting to be installed on the unit’s western side as this would have the most significant impact on wildlife.

·         The lighting on the existing units was on outside of the hours of operation in the application before the Committee.

·         The landscaping and screening required by a previous condition had not been planted.

·         The access was a single lane on a blind bend and there was no footpath.

·         The development would lead to an increase in traffic volume. Traffic calming measures should be conditioned.

7.         Councillor Beck asked what the difference in the number of parking spaces was between the original and amended application. Dr Knowles advised that 38 were originally proposed and it was now 48 spaces. Derek Carnegie advised that the application regarding parking spaces had been withdrawn.

8.         Councillor Paul Bryant asked whether both bollard and passive infrared (PIR) would be unacceptable to the objectors. Dr Knowles advised that bollard lighting would be acceptable as it would be at a low level and not visible from the village. They objected to a fixed light on the side of the unit.

9.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.(2)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/03427 in respect of the change of use of part of the car park at Newbury Rugby Club to commercial use for West Berkshire Transport Operations Team.

2.    In introducing the report the Planning Officer stated that this was a major application by the Local Authority to make part of a parking area available for use by public service vehicles. It was considered that there would be limited impact on traffic flows. Greenham Parish Council had raised an objection in relation to the access road and that it was too small to take the additional traffic generated. However, the parking would be for around 25 minibuses and vans which would be leaving the site early in the morning and returning late in the afternoon and therefore there would not be a significant conflict in terms of traffic movement.

3.    Councillor Paul Bryant noted that there was also a care home in the vicinity and he asked if consideration had been taken into account in relation to the cumulative effect. The Highways Officer stated that there were concerns about the junction onto Monks Lane but traffic movements would be in off peak hours and therefore it was felt that the impact would not be significant. Traffic volume for the nursing home was also low.

4.    Councillor Hilary Cole asked why the red line included the grandstand if the proposal was only for parking of service vehicles. Sharon Armour confirmed that there would be some use of an office within that area.

5.    Councillor Jeff Beck was disappointed that no-one from the Transport Officer Team was present at the meeting to answer questions. It gives the impression that the Committee would rubber stamp the application. Also neither of the Ward Members had felt that it was necessary to attend the meeting.

6.    Councillor Adrian Edwards asked whether David Lloyd Leisure had been consulted on the proposal as that venue was open from 6.30am until 10.00pm and therefore there would be a conflict of traffic. The Highways Officer responded that traffic at off peak times would still be less. He confirmed that David Lloyd had been consulted but had not submitted any comments.

7.    Councillor Howard Bairstow felt that this proposal benefitted both the Rugby Club and the Council. It gave the Rugby Club additional income and also provided a space for public vehicles to park. The site was remote and secure.

8.    Councillor Anthony Pick supported the comments made by Councillor Edwards and that all neighbours should be consulted on the proposals.

9.    Councillor Anthony Pick proposed that the Committee accept the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor James Cole. The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal; at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.      The development shall be started within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.(3)