Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 27 June 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Page 8: The following paragraphs were to be inserted in relation to the reason for the refusal of planning application 18/00861/HOUSE:-

‘The proposed two storey side extension, by virtue of its relationship with the neighbouring property, No.1 Church Street, represented an overly dominant form of development that would cause an unacceptable level of overbearing to the private amenity area, specifically the rear courtyard of this property. 

The proposal therefore failed to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of neighbouring properties as required in the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 - 2026, which sought to ensure that new development was appropriate in terms of location, scale and design. In addition the proposed extension would run contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance 'House Extensions' Part 5 - The Effect on Neighbours’.

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.

Councillors Jeff Beck, Jeanette Clifford, Billy Drummond, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Clive Hooker declared an interest in Agenda Item 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.

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. 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.)

(Councillors Jeanette Clifford, Billy Drummond and Adrian Edwards declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Foundation Governors at St Bartholomew's School and the school owned a property at 5 Buckingham Road. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01001/HOUSE in respect of 25 Buckingham Road, Newbury for the erection of a single storey rear extension; garage conversion to playroom and utility; re-tile existing house with slate tiles; render existing house and extension; removal of existing chimney stacks; alterations to existing porch and bay windows; internal alterations.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Simon Weaver and Matthew Scaplehorn, applicant/agent and Councillor Anthony Pick, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in to the Committee by Councillor Pick due to concerns about the impact on the character of the area.  The application took account of all the relevant policy and other material considerations and Derek Carnegie concluded that the proposals were acceptable.  Therefore, on balance Officers recommended the Committee should grant planning permission.

4.         The Chairman added for clarity that Councillor Pick had called the item into the Committee because of his concerns about the use of slates on the roof of the property and the removal of the chimneys.

5.         Simon Weaver in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           He was the applicant, had lived in Newbury all his life and had purchased the property as a home for his family.

·           The property required a considerable amount of modernisation both internally and externally and he wanted it to last beyond his family’s forthcoming requirements.  Therefore they wished to bring the house up-to-date through the use of modern materials.

·           However, they wanted to be good neighbours and did not want to cause any offence with the alterations.  Consequently he had attended the meeting so that he could understand the various objections.

6.    Councillor Hilary Cole asked why the chimneys were being removed.  Mr Weaver replied that as there was no purpose in retaining the fire places, there did not seem any reason to retain the chimneys.  In addition, it seemed appropriate to remove them whilst the construction work was being undertaken, as there might come a time in the future when they would need to be removed.

7.    Councillor Pick asked about the motivation for rendering the house. Mr Weaver responded that they had liked the look of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.(1)

(Councillor Clive Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied at the site meeting. 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.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/01553/OUTMAJ in respect of Land off Faraday Road, Newbury for a Section 73 application to vary the conditions of approved application APP/WO340/W/14/3002040, in order to permit a phased approach.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Steven Smallman, agent addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which had been brought to the Committee because West Berkshire Council owned the freehold of the site and it was a major application. However Michael Butler stressed that the proposal was not to extend the lifetime of the original permission, which was due to expire on 1 February 2019, but to amend a number of planning conditions attached to the original permission to allow phasing of the development to be permitted.  This phasing would necessitate a range of alterations to the conditions, taking into account any new policies or material changes on the ground since the appeal decision, and the Committee was asked to take into account the material considerations in the report.  Michael Butler concluded that on balance Officers recommended that the planning permission should be granted with conditions varied, subject to the first completion of the Section 106 obligation as amended under 18/01454/mdopo.

4.         Steven Smallman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      The purpose of the Section 73 application was only to amend the conditions to allow the development to be delivered in phases, but unfortunately it did not extend the time limits.

·      The only reason the original planning permission did not include the phasing was because the practicalities of how it would be delivered were not considered at the time. For example, condition 14 that related to noise, stated that a scheme of works had to be submitted and approved for the whole site before any of the units could be occupied.

·      Therefore, phasing of the works would allow a standard construction approach and would also improve the funding of the scheme, so making it more attractive to investors.

·      If the application was approved it would be likely that the scheme would be delivered earlier than expected, as the building out of phases in turn would assist cash flow and the viability of the overall scheme.

·      This was an important part of the London Road Industrial Estate and local planning policies stated that the Council should be supporting the delivery of this key site.

·      If the Council had not owned the freehold of the site, it was likely that the permission would have been granted under a delegated decision and would not have come to Committee.

·      If permission was granted, he requested that condition 6 relating to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.(2)