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 

Note: PLEASE NOTE: Agenda Item 4(2) Application 18/01315/HOUSE for 1 Lower Farm Court, Hambridge Lane has been WITHDRAWN fromt he agenda following the site visit, 

Items
No. Item

34.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 166 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 November 2018.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 December 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the correct of the following typographical errors:

Page 9, third bullet from the top: replace ‘would be a carbunkle’ to ‘was a carbunkle’.

Page 9, paragraph 22: replace ‘not development’ with ‘no development’.

Page 10, paragraph 29: replace ‘asked of’ with ‘asked if’.

Page 10, paragraph 38: replace ‘risk that’ with ‘risk to’.

Page 12, paragraph 5: replace ‘sauna wound’ with ‘sauna would’.

Page 13, paragraph 18: replace ‘clos’ with ‘close.

Page 16, paragraph 3: remove repeated ‘Derek Carnegie’.

Page 17, paragraph 8: replace ‘i’ with ‘if’.

Page 17, paragraph 10: replace ‘render’ with ‘rendered’.

35.

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 and Paul Hewer declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4 (1).

Councillors Jeff Beck, James Cole and Virginia von Celsing 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.

36.

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).

36.(1)

Application No. and Parish: 18/02623/FULD - Hungerford pdf icon PDF 120 KB

Proposal:

Resubmission of previously approved scheme for a replacement dwelling (17/03089/FULD) to provide a summer house/exercise room to the rear of the dwelling house.

Location:

Site of former 145 Priory Road, Hungerford

Applicant:

John and Sylvia Downe

Recommendation:

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Paul Hewer declared that they had been lobbied on this item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02623/FULD in respect of the resubmission of a previously approved scheme for a replacement dwelling (17/03089/FULD) to provide a summer house/exercise room to the rear of the dwelling house.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Jan Giggins and Mrs Doris Colloff, objectors, and Mr John Downe, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    The Chairman notified the Committee that a member of the public was recording the meeting and asked whether any members of the public had any objections to being filmed. No objections were raised.

4.    The Chairman also notified the Committee that Mrs Giggins had submitted a request to extend speaking time to 10 minutes from the usual 5 minutes. The Chairman declined the request on the basis that this was not a major application and it would be unfair to other speakers who would have prepared shorter presentations.

5.    Lydia Mather 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 detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

6.    Mrs Giggins and Mrs Colloff in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application was incomplete and invalid. The committee report was incomplete, convoluted, contradictory and incorrect. Before the Committee determined the application all Members should visit the site.

·         The Committee should reconsider the extant permission for the house.

·         Mrs Giggins advised she had also requested that her husband be registered to speak by the Planning Registration Team but this request had not been acknowledged.

(Post meeting note: The Planning Registration Team confirmed that Mrs Giggins had not submitted a request for her husband to speak.)

·         Formerly an application on the site had been approved with permitted development rights removed; this restriction should be maintained.

·         The application requested retrospective permission for the house in order to cover mistakes. A basement swimming pool had been approved under a previous permission but had not been built.

·         Approval of the application would reset permitted development rights and so encourage overdevelopment.

·         The house that had been built on the site was larger than neighbouring properties.

·         They disputed that the previous permission should have been granted.

·         The applicant had not submitted a view of the street scene with the application.

·         The applicant had ignored the conditions of previous permissions and approval of this application would reward bad behaviour.

·         The landscaping scheme had not yet been planted.

·         Restrictions should be imposed to prevent the pool building being converted into a dwelling in the future.

7.    Councillor Jeff Beck asked why the application was invalid and contradictory. Mrs Giggins stated that the application description on the planning portal only made reference to the pool house and other amendments when in fact the application was also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.(1)

36.(2)

Application No. and Parish: 18/01315/HOUSE - Greenham pdf icon PDF 95 KB

Proposal:

Proposed single storey building within the rear garden.

Location:

1 Lower Farm Court, Hambridge Lane, Newbury, RG14 5TH

Applicant:

Mr Page

Recommendation:

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn after the publication of the agenda.

36.(3)

Application No. and Parish: 18/01090/FULD - Welford and Wickham pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Proposal:

Conversion of four agricultural buildings to residential use including parking, landscaping and associated works.

Location:

Elton Farm, Weston, Newbury, RG20 8JG

Applicant:

Mr J H L Puxley Esq LL

Recommendation:

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillors Jeff Beck, James Cole and Virginia von Celsing declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that they were acquainted with the applicant in his capacity as the Lord Lieutenant for Berkshire. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/01090/FULD in respect of the proposed conversion of four agricultural buildings to residential use including parking, landscaping and associated works at Elton Farm, Weston.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Puxley, applicant, and Mr Justin Packman, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Derek Carnegie 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. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Paul Goddard drew the Committee’s attention to the Highways report on page 50 of the agenda and advised that while concerns regarding sightlines were shared by Highways Officers, it was likely that residential traffic from the site would be less than or equal to agricultural traffic.

5.    Mr Puxley and Mr Packman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application for the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to residential dwellings was compliant with the Council’s policies.

·         They had worked constructively with the Council to resolve matters and the plans had been amended in response to comments raised, such as maintaining the historical width of the Public Right of Way.

·         There had been drainage issues on a nearby site but this had nothing to do with the applicant.

·         The applicant’s family had been custodians of the land on which the site sat for over 400 years and wished to maintain the health of the River Lambourn.

·         The site was not connected to mains waste water and relevant tests had confirmed that the proposed drainage solution would be adequate and meet the Sustainable Drainage System requirements. The removal of the hardstanding and the creation of gardens would reduce rainwater run off by 30%.

·         The foul drainage of the farmhouse, although outside of the application, would also be improved.

·         Natural England and the Council’s Drainage Officer considered that the application was acceptable.

6.    Councillor James Cole asked whether the applicant would be amenable to a condition to secure the long term maintenance of the drainage system. Mr Packman advised that the applicant wanted to ensure that the drainage system was maintained and understood that there was a condition proposed by officers to keep it in full working order.

7.    Councillor Jeff Beck asked whether the roofs of the current farm buildings was concrete or asbestos, and if it was asbestos it would be removed. Mr Packman responded that if any asbestos was discovered on the site it would be removed safely.

8.    Councillor Hilary Cole asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.(3)