Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 4^th April 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 April 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of an informative regarding sprinklers, as recommended by Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service, in respect of application 18/00223/FULD.

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 17/03392/OUTD in respect of land at Windsor House Stables, Crowle Road, Lambourn.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Jane Rowlinson, Parish Council representative, Mr David MacKinney and Mr Jerry Spary, objectors, and Mr Charlie Parker and Mr Aaron Peate, applicant and agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Michael Butler introduced the report to 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, subject to the first completion of a s 106 planning obligation. Officers on balance recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.            Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment of the highways matters. He advised that the Highways Officer had considered the design which complied with the Council’s standards for road width, sight lines and parking. Objectors had raised concerns regarding traffic movements and potential conflict between the residents of the proposed dwellings and the activity of the stable yard. Officers had estimated that the development would generate 32 traffic movements per day, of which four would be in each of the morning and evening peaks. Paul Goddard admitted he was not an equine expert however the site would generate a small number of traffic movements so he did not think it would cause harm.

5.            Councillor Rowlinson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Lambourn Parish Council supported the local racing industry. The relocation of the current trotting ring would make the stable yard inoperable and so they could not support the application.

·         There would be horses crossing the road from the stables to the relocated trotting ring several times per day. It would be difficult to maintain the safety of the road and road users because horses were unpredictable animals.

·         The number of traffic movements had been underestimated as there would also be horse boxes and delivery vehicles using the dual access.

·         The proposal would cause fragmentation of the stable yard, which Policy CS12 sought to prevent.

·         There had also been flood issues in the area.

6.            Councillor Paul Bryant sought clarification on what had been meant by dual access as the proposal showed only one access point to the development. Councillor Rowlinson advised that she meant the access would have dual-use by residents and the stable yard.

7.            Councillor Adrian Edwards asked whether pedestrians or horses had priority on the highway. Councillor Rowlinson advised that horses would keep left and they and their handlers wore high visibility jackets. Vehicles would be allowed to pass if it was appropriate but as it was likely that young horses would be using the road, there was a risk to pedestrians sharing the space because there would be no barrier or buffer. Councillor Edwards sought clarification that there would be no pedestrian footpath. Councillor Rowlinson advised that there would be a 2m wide pathway with no kerb  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.(1)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03127/FULD in respect of a full application to demolish the existing bungalow and redevelop to provide two one-bed flats and four two-bed flats with parking and ancillary areas.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Jane Rowlinson, Parish Council representative, Mrs Josephine Bull and Mrs Alison Graham, objectors, and Mr Richard Potter, 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. Paul Goddard confirmed that the proposed parking provision complied with the Council’s adopted parking standards.

4.            Councillor Rowlinson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposed development was tantamount to overdevelopment.

·         Ten parking spaces had been provided and this would be insufficient.

·         Lambourn Parish Council were seeking to obtain responsibility for the grass verge on the corner of the plot through a devolution agreement with West Berkshire Council. These discussions predated the planning application.

·         Sight lines from the access to the site were a concern. The site was on a busy junction close to the fire station and the school.

·         The parish council were not opposed to new housing in Lambourn but were of the view that the proposal would be overdevelopment of the site.

5.            Mrs Graham and Mrs Bull in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposed development would demolish a family home to build flats and should be rejected. There would be an increase in the number of people, levels of noise and pressure on parking.

·         The site would be on a blind bend and it was a busy route to the local primary school.

·         Members had observed that the street was blocked with parked cars at the site visit. Emergency vehicles would find it difficult to get through the road.

·         An application for two houses on the site had been rejected by the Council in 2015 so it was difficult to understand why six flats was acceptable.

6.            Councillor Adrian Edwards asked whether there were any other flats in the area. Mrs Bull advised that there were some flats on Station Road and the road was full of cars overnight.

7.            Councillor Garth Simpson expressed the view that flats had higher occupancy levels and were likely to own more cars. He asked whether the occupants of the terraced housing were likely to own two cars per household. Mrs Graham noted that many of the terraced houses had driveways so did not need to park on the road.

8.            Mr Potter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Officers had considered the application thoroughly.

·         A S106 agreement would be entered with the Council.

9.            Councillor Anthony Pick asked what drainage would be used on the site. Mr Potter replied that an onsite SUDS solution would be used to ensure there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.(2)