Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 June 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.

Councillor Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item 5(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 Dennis Benneyworth and Paul Hewer declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item (2).

1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/00861/HOUSE in respect of the construction of a single storey rear extension and a two storey extension at Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill. Hampstead Norreys.
2. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor David Barlow, Parish Council representative, and Ms Teresa Fleetwood, Mr Andy Wilcock, Mr Michael Binns, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application.
3. Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy and other material considerations. In conclusion the reports detailed that the proposals were acceptable and conditional approval was justifiable. Officers on balance recommended the Committee grant planning permission.
4. Paul Goddard advised that there would be no change to the access to the property and there was sufficient parking. A condition to minimise disruption during construction was recommended.
5. Councillor Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         17 letters objecting to the application had been received by the Council.

·         It was disappointing that the Conservation Officer had been unable to comment on the application as the site was close to the conservation area and in his opinion constituted overdevelopment of the site.

·         Cherry Hinton was visible from 1 and 2 Church Street, flint walled properties built in 1910.

·         The Parish Council had been unanimous in its objection to the proposed extension.

·         Neighbours would be overlooked and there would be detriment to their wellbeing and privacy.

·         It was possible to extend the house on the other side without impact on neighbours.

·         It would be contrary to the Council’s Core Strategy and the NPPF to approve the application

6.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked to be shown the location of Cherry Hinton in relation to the conservation area. Councillor Barlow indicated the location of the conservation area on the block plan.

7. Ms Fleetwood, Mr Wilcock, Mr Binns in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Wilcock explained that he lived at 1 Church Street which bordered Cherry Hinton.

·         He did not object to the single storey rear extension but the side extension was shocking in terms of scale and impact.

·         The case officer had written to the applicant regarding the dominance and private amenity impact of the proposals. Plans were resubmitted and the reduction in size from the original plans was less than 10%.

·         There would be a direct view from the rear of the property into 1 Church Street’s courtyard garden and a frosted window was not sufficient to reduce the impact on privacy.

·         There would be a significant impact on the amount of light his property received because the extension would be only a foot away from the boundary and 15ft from the house. There was already a 4ft ground level difference and the extension would be 20ft tall.

·         The block plan shown to the Committee was incorrect.

·         The case officer’s concerns regarding the dominance and private amenity impact of the proposals had not been adequately addressed and the recommendation to grant planning permission was unjustified.

·         It was possible for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.(1)

(Councillor Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5(2) by virtue of the fact that he had held a conversation with the objector, Nicola Scott from Great Western Railway, regarding a separate matter. 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.)

(Councillor Dennis Benneyworth and Paul Hewer declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item (2).)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/00837/FULEXT in respect of an application for the erection of 30 flats and associated parking, landscaping and amenity space, with coffee shop on land at the former Oakes Bros site, Station Yard, Hungerford.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Carolann Farrell and Councillor Keith Knight, Parish Council representatives, Nicola Scott, Assistant Regional Development Manager East, Great Western Railway, objector, and Mr James Cleary, 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 reports detailed that although the proposals were contrary to the Council’s policy to protect employment land, the site had been unsuccessfully marketed as such for a considerable length of time and the Planning Inspectorate had allowed at appeal a smaller block of flats on a similar site nearby. Officers had considered whether the appeal decision carried weight in this case and considered that the Planning Inspector’s determination in addition to the Government’s advocacy of homebuilding led to a conclusion that the proposals were on balance acceptable and conditional approval was justifiable. As the proposals were contrary to policy Officers recommended the Committee refer the application to the District Planning Committee with a recommendation to grant planning permission.

4.    Paul Goddard noted that the application was similar to a scheme refused by the Committee in September 2017. Among the reasons for refusal were inadequate pedestrian routes and the loss of parking for commuters. Pedestrian routes were improved in the scheme before the Committee and officers had negotiated with Thames Valley Police regarding the construction of a footway on land in their ownership. In the previous application 21 parking spaces would have been lost on land owned by Network Rail, in the current application that would be reduced to 3 spaces lost. The developer had also agreed to make a contribution to cycle storage at the train station. From a Highways perspective the reasons for refusal had been overcome. Transport Policy Officers had expressed concerns similar to Great Western Railway regarding the loss of parking spaces for rail commuters. It was difficult to quantify the impact that the displacement of parking spaces would have on the town. Finally Paul Goddard highlighted that the site, while currently used as a car park, was temporary and its permission had expired two years previously. The car park could close at any time. Highways Officers agreed with the balanced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.(2)