Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 30 January 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following:-

Page 11, paragraph 58: Councillor Jeff Beck noted that the requested informative regarding the use of traffic marshals had not been included in the conditions and Derek Carnegie agreed to check that this had occurred.

Page 6, paragraph 3: replace ‘form’ with ‘from’.

Page 8, paragraph 29, last line: replace ‘ion’ with ‘on’.

Page 9, paragraph 32: replace ‘MRs’ with ‘Mrs’.

Page 9, paragraph 36: replace ‘Here’ with ‘There’.

Page 11, paragraph 56: replace ‘form’ with ‘from’.

Page 60, paragraph 60: replace ‘uses’ with ‘using’ and ‘strong mandate’ with ‘strongly mandated’.

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, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared in interest in Agenda Item 4(2), 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.

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/03398/HOUSE in respect of a two storey and single storey extension at Winterley House, Kintbury.

2.         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 unacceptable and consequently officers recommended the Committee to refuse planning permission.  Derek Carnegie further added that a decision was currently awaited from the Planning Inspector on the earlier planning application and this was due very shortly.

3.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr M McNally and Mr Ian Lasseter, applicant/agent, and Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

4.         Mr McNally and Mr Lasseter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                They bought the house in 2008 because they had fallen in love with it, along with its setting and wanted to make it their family home for a long time.

·                At the time their three boys had been young children but they were now teenagers and consequently they needed more space, which was the reason for submitting the planning application.

·                The house was very pretty and dated back to the 1780s.  It was an l-shape when they bought it and they had since squared it off with a new façade made of high quality materials, which gave the impression that this extension was part of the original house.

·                Therefore they wanted to retain the high quality build by using old bricks and they were also intending to replace the modern garage.

·                The house was extended twice during the Victorian era, delisted in the 1980s and squared off in 2010.  Therefore it was not a symmetrical Georgian house and consequently a balanced judgement was required with regard to the harm this application would cause.

·                They considered that the extension was subservient to the existing dwelling.

·                There was no heritage imperative for the dwelling to be symmetrical.

·                The decision on the previous application was at appeal as stated by Derek Carnegie, but the decision was not expected for another three months, as they had only just received an acknowledgement from the Planning Inspector.

5.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked why they had submitted this planning application when the earlier one was still awaiting the appeal decision. Mr Lasseter advised that as they had made some changes to the earlier application, they had hoped it would be acceptable to the Committee.

6.         Councillor Anthony Pick enquired what evidence they possessed that showed the dwelling dated back to the 1780s.  Mr McNally explained that they had been told this by the previous owners and it was also referenced in various documents, as well as on the heritage gateway site.

7.         Councillor Pick further enquired whether a Heritage Impact Assessment had been undertaken and he was assured by Mr McNally that it had.  Mr McNally added that the dwelling had originally been a small farmhouse, which had been extended in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.(1)

The Chairman reconvened the meeting at 7.35pm.

(Councillors Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Items 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and were present at the meeting when the application was discussed but said they would consider it afresh. 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. Councillor Pick also stated that he had been lobbied on the application.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/00019/HOUSE in respect of a single storey extension and basement at 19 Battery End, Newbury.

2.         Matthew Shepherd 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.  Consequently officers recommended the Committee to grant planning permission.

3.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Stephen Beck, objector, Mr Jack and Mrs Danielle Stacey, applicant, and Councillor Adrian Edwards, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

4.         Mr Stephen Beck in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                He was one of a number of residents who had submitted objections to the application.

·                They had been surprised by the lack of consultation by the applicant with neighbours on the application.

·                The applicant had moved the eastern boundary fence that adjoined the track and installed a membrane without prior consultation and it was not possible to assume that the covenant allowed for this to occur.  The track was privately owned and other residents also had rights of access.   As a result there had been confusion at the recent site meeting as to where the boundary was situated.

·                The Deeds included a restrictive covenant that stated the front of the house should be set back no less than six feet from the footpath.

·                They wanted a dropped kerb to be installed in keeping with the rest of the street as this was also a safety issue.

·                They also wanted the boundary to be restored before the work commenced.

·                Parking would be accessed by driving across the shared track and they requested that the applicant provided a front and back access to the property instead.

·                They were pleased that conditions had been included on the storage of building materials and restrictions on the working hours.  However, they would also like to see the inclusion of a deadline for completion of the building work, since the applicant would be undertaking the work himself.

5.         Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Highways had commented on the dropped kerb in the report, but it was not something they could insist upon.  She also questioned whether it was realistic to ask the applicant to restore the boundary prior to commencement of the work, as it would be more beneficial to do so after it had been completed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.(2)