To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions

Contact: Jenny Legge / Rachel Craggs / Jo Reeves 

Items
No. Item

24.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 157 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 10 October 2018.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendment:

Page 5: Councillor Billy Drummond had sent his apologies in advance of the meeting and therefore, he was not ‘absent’.

Page 9: The last sentence in paragraph 36 should read ‘blue line’ and not ‘red line’.

Page 11: The first line in paragraph 8 should read ‘paddocks and stables’.

 

25.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillors Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), 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.

26.

Schedule of Planning Applications

(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).

26.(1)

Application No. and Parish: 18/01657/COND1 - Cold Ash Parish Council pdf icon PDF 75 KB

Proposal:

Approval of details reserved by Condition 4 - External Materials Schedule and samples, 7 - Construction Method Statement, 8 - Surfacing for driveways/access points, 10 - Vehicle parking and turning, 11 - Access details, 12 - Cycle storage, 13 - Refuse storage and 15 - Boundary hedge, of planning permission reference 16/02529/OUTD.

Location:

Land adjacent to Summerfield, the Ridge, Cold Ash

Applicant:

T A Fisher and Sons Limited.

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT a split decision conditions discharge.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01657/COND1 in respect of land adjacent to Summerfield, the Ridge, Cold Ash.

Derek Carnegie introduced the report and update sheet to Members.  He highlighted that there was an unusual situation with the application, as it would require a split decision because the detail was not available for two of the conditions and they could not be discharged. These were Condition 4 (materials) and Condition 12 (cycle storage). Officers were dissatisfied with the situation but as the application had received 47 objections, officers in the Legal Service had advised it should be brought to Committee.  He therefore asked Members how they would like to deal with the application as they did not have the detail they required, which would have been set out in the reserved matters.

The Chairman then asked the Committee if they were able to approve the application before them.

Councillor Paul Bryant agreed that it was an unusual and unacceptable situation and he proposed that the matter should be deferred until the reserved matters had been agreed.  The proposal was seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole.

Councillor Garth Simpson commented that the Parish Council had a major concern with Condition 11.  The Chairman responded by advising that if the Committee was in favour of the proposal to defer, it would not be possible for the speakers to address the Committee.  Councillor Simpson enquired whether this meant the conditions would be agreed at the same time as the reserved matters.  Derek Carnegie confirmed that this would be the case and they would both come back to the Committee at the same time.

Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the Committee had never looked at a discharge of conditions and added she could understand residents’ confusion, as they had not been provided with all the information on the application.  She asked if the Council’s Legal Service could look at the Constitution and decide what matters could and could not be taken to Committee to avoid a similar situation occurring.

Councillor Anthony Pick pointed out there was no information in the report on landscaping and the Chairman advised that this would be addressed in the reserved matters.

Councillor Jeff Beck noted it was a hopeless situation with Members being asked to make a split decision.

Councillor James Cole stated he agreed with the proposal but he had been confused at the site meeting, as the plan had shown a small access and he would like this clarified.  Councillor Clive Hooker advised he had already passed this request on.

Councillor Adrian Edwards noted it was possible for the Committee to vote on some of the conditions.

Councillor Simpson pointed out that the residents who had attended the site meeting had been told the application would be considered at this meeting.  Councillor Hooker replied that it was necessary to attend the site meeting as it would not have been possible to advise residents that it was not taking place.

The Chairman invited the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.(1)

27.

Application No. and Parish: 18/01914/HOUSE - Hampstead Norreys Parish Council pdf icon PDF 100 KB

Proposal:

Two storey side extension

Location:

Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill, Hampstead Norreys

Applicant:

Mr Lee Clarke

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/01914/HOUSE in respect of Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill, Hampstead Norreys.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, David Barlow, Parish Council representative, Theresa Fleetwood, objector, Lee Clark, applicant and Councillor Virginia von Celsing, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in to the Committee by Councillor von Celsing and it had received more than ten letters of objection.  He explained there had been a detailed discussion on this application at a previous meeting following the site visit, but as there had been confusion with the drawings, it had been deferred to this meeting. 

Officers had been recommending approval of the application.  However, the appeal decision relating to an earlier application had been received after the agenda papers had been circulated and, as detailed in the Update Report, it had been dismissed.  As a result, officers were now recommending refusal of the application, as they did not consider the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector had been overcome. 

The Chairman advised that the application should be considered by the Committee regardless of the change in recommendation.

Councillor Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     There had been a significant number of objections to the application.

·                     Cherry Hinton had been built in 1962 and it did not enhance the conservation area as the other properties in the vicinity had been built around 1910.

·                     The Parish Council did not consider that the application was appropriate for the area.

·                     The drawings contained misrepresentations and it was difficult to appreciate the reality of the proposed extension without visiting the site.

·                     It would result in substantial overshadowing of 1 Church Street and if approval was granted, their court-yard would become prison-like.

·                     The Parish Council had objected unanimously to the application.

·                     Policy CS14 required new developments to be of a high standard and to be appropriate to the neighbourhood, which this was not.

·                     The impact of the extension would be exacerbated by the difference in ground levels between Cherry Hinton and 1 Church Street.  The Planning Inspector had agreed with this and the appeal decision stated that the living conditions at 1 Church Street would be negatively impacted.

Councillor Anthony Pick noted that certain modifications had been made to the application and asked if these changes altered the Parish Council’s view.  Councillor Barlow replied that it did not and added that the main issue was the close proximity of the extension to 1 Church Street.

Mrs Fleetwood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     She had lived at 1 Church Street for 12 years and had expected some improvements after the previous occupant had died, but the significant changes proposed by the applicant had been a shock.

·                     The revised plans did very little to address her earlier concerns.

·                     The light levels at the rear of her property would be significantly reduced and the kitchen would never receive any sun-light again.

·                     There was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Application No. and Parish: 18/02019/COMIND - Newbury Town Council pdf icon PDF 258 KB

Proposal:

Extension and alteration of existing cottage to create hotel restaurant with outdoor seating terrace, condenser unit to side and roof-mounted extract

Location:

Newbury Manor Hotel, London Road, Newbury,

Berkshire RG14 2BY

Applicant:

SCP Newbury Manor Ltd

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council and was present at the meeting when the application was discussed.  In addition, he was Chairman of the Lambourn Renewal Project, which effected a section of the river near the application site. 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.)

(Councillors Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/0219/COMIND in respect of Newbury Manor Hotel, London Road, Newbury.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Peter Harvey-Di Gioia and Edward Sharp, objectors, Gavin Cooper, applicant and Councillor Jeff Beck, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which had been called in to the Committee by Councillor Beck due to concerns about the impact on the neighbouring amenity.  The application took account of all the relevant policy and other material considerations and Matthew Shepherd drew the Committee’s attention to the amended recommendation.  This was to approve the application subject to no objections from the Environment Agency.  He concluded that the proposals were acceptable and therefore, on balance, Officers recommended the Committee should grant planning permission.

The Chairman invited Paul Goddard to comment on the traffic implications.  He advised that they should be minimal and the reduction in parking spaces from 129 to 121 should provide sufficient parking on the site.

Mr Harvey-Di Gioia and Mr Sharp in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     They were representing neighbours from the flats and houses that were closest to the hotel.

·                     They had received a letter on 4 October 2018 from the applicant stating that he was keen to work with them, but this was only a short time before the deadline for submitting objections.  Consequently there was only a very limited amount of time for this.

·                     Their main concerns were about noise from the site and loss of privacy from the boundary.

·                     They were not happy with the opening times as the noise from guests in the car park at the end of the evening would be intrusive and no mention had been made of this.

·                     They had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain answers to questions about what would be retained and removed from the boundary.

·                     The applicant’s ecology report stated there was no evidence of water voles or bat roosts, however they had provided evidence to the contrary.

·                     They questioned whether policy OBS5 had been taken into account with the proposed siting of the restaurant.

·                     They would like to work with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.