Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that Councillor Tony Vickers be elected Vice-Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee for the 2019/20 Municipal Year.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 13 March 2019 and 21 May 2019.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 13 March 2019 and 21 May 2019 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.

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck, James Cole, Carolyne Culver, Claire Rowles and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Items 2, 3 and/or 5, but reported that, as their interest were 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.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda after it was published.

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3 by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and their Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Beck had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application 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 Vickers had been lobbied on this item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/00411/REM in respect of a reserve matters application for a new dwelling with integral garage of appeal reference APP/W0340/W/17/3191372 (17/01808/OUTD). Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale at garden land at 5 Normay Rise, Newbury.

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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers firmly recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Diane Hill and Mr Kevan Williams, objectors, and Mr Robert Megson, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.    Ms Hill and Mr Williams in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Ms Hill was speaking on behalf of her mother who lived adjacent to the site.

·         Although the principle of the application had been authorised through appeal, this application had not. The Committee were asked to reject the application due to its form and scale which would lead to a cramped overdevelopment of the site.

·         The proposed dwelling would overhang the property boundary.

·         The proximity of the property at 21m would impact on Ms Hill’s mother’s privacy and if the Committee were minded to approve the application they should change the application to be a bungalow.

·         Mr Williams had lived adjacent to the site for 1977.

·         The proposed design was not in-keeping with the neo-Georgian appearance of the rest of the area which had originally been known as the Battledean Estate.

·         The position of the proposed dwelling was one metre forward of the established building line.

·         Newbury Town Council’s representations regarding the application were submitted ahead of the deadline and therefore would not have taken all public views into account.

5.    Councillor Tony Vickers asked Ms Hill if she was aware that the Council’s policy allowed a 21m gap between properties. Ms Hill advised that she was aware and that she knew the policy had been deemed controversial.

6.    Councillor Vickers asked if Mr Williams agreed that Normay Rise did not have a clear building line. Mr Williams responded that his neighbour had not been permitted by the Council to extend their property to the front because of the building line.

7.    Councillor Adrian Abbs asked how Ms Hill knew the distance between the properties would be 21m. Ms Hill advised that she had scaled up the plans.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(2)

(Councillor Vickers had been lobbied on this item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/00806/HOUSE in respect of a three storey side extension and new porch at 24 Donnington Square, Newbury.

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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Charlotte Hawkins and Mr David Peacock, objectors, and Mr Gareth Davies, applicant, and Mr Matt Taylor, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.    Mrs Hawkins and Mr Peacock in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The extension did not mirror the extension of the adjoining property.

·         No conservation report had been undertaken.

·         It did not enhance the appearance of the area.

·         There would be a loss of the open aspect to the front Mrs Hawkins’ property. It was already overshadowed and the impact would increase if the application was allowed.

·         Donnington Square was its own conservation area.

·         Comments from the Newbury Society had been misrepresented.

5.    Councillor Jeff Beck stated that Ms Hawkins had provided a report written by Harrison Duckett Associates (HDA) which she mentioned at the site visit but noted it was not referenced in the update report. Ms Hawkins responded that the case officer had advised that the report might not be circulated to the Committee which is why she sent it on.

6.    Councillor Phil Barnett asked how the extension of number 25 was different to the proposal. Ms Hawkins advised that it was narrower and had a different roof.

7.    Councillor Abbs asked how much additional overshadowing would be caused by the proposed extension. Ms Hawkins responded that it would be around 30 minutes in the morning however the modelling provided by the applicant only showed 2 hour blocks.

8.    Councillor Tony Vickers asked whether the applicant had discussed the plans with Ms Hawkins. She responded that they had after the plans were submitted.

9.    Councillor Carolyne Culver asked what width the extension would be versus the existing extension at number 25. Ms Hawkins advised that 25’s extension was 2.5m whereas number 24 proposed a 3.6m extension.

10.Mr Davies and Mr Taylor in addressing the Committee made the following points:

·         Mr Davies planned to live in the property and wanted to make space for his family.

·         He recognised the historic importance of Donnington Square and wanted to improve the street scene.

·         The extension would be 10cm narrower and 2.5m shorter than the extension of 25 Donnington Square.

·         Ten objections had been submitted in respect of the original application. Only two objections remained in respect of the revised plans.

·         The new extension would be visually indifferent to the extension at 25 Donnington Square.

·         The additional overshadowing on neighbours at number 23 would be minimal and occur in the early hours of the Winter.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(3)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda after it was published.

(Councillor Claire Rowles had been lobbied on this application.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5(5)) concerning Planning Application18/03398/HOUSE in respect of two storey and single storey extensions 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 unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Markus McNally, applicant, and Mr Frank Dowling, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

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

·         The property was not a listed building or in a Conservation Area and there was no mention of any historic interest in any property searches. It was being referred to as a non-designated asset by the Council, a phrase which had no legal meaning.

·         The Planning Inspector who determined the appeal was not a specialist in historic buildings.

·         The property was of Georgian origin and had been extended and altered throughout its life to meet the wishes of successive owners and now had a muddled internal layout. Improvements were required and the best features would be preserved.

·         The application had been revised from the version seen by the Planning Inspector. The extension had been set back and down so it was distinguished and subservient to the main part of the property. Details and materials would match the main part of the house and enhance the property.

·         The applicant was committed to the local area and wanted to make the property larger for his family.

5.    Councillor Adrian Abbs enquired upon the heritage status of the property and noted that previously there was a grade three listing for buildings, which was removed in the 1980s. Mr Dowling advised that some properties had been upgraded to Grade two when grade three status was removed and others were removed entirely from the list unless in a Conservation Area. Some Councils held local lists.

6.    Councillor James Cole and Claire Rowles in addressing the Committee as Ward Members raised the following points:

·         The property was not Georgian. One quarter of the ground floor was the original Georgian, one quarter was mid-Victorian and the remaining half was modern.

·         The ‘nice bit’ of the property was the modern part. The house was no a heritage asset.

·         Great weight was attached in the appeal decision to the property’s status as a non-designated heritage asset. One day it might justify such a label.

·         The proposed extension was subservient to the main property.

·         Four Members present at the Committee had not undertaken a site visit and they should see the site in order to make a decision. The Committee should permit the application or defer in order to complete a site visit.

7.    Councillor Tony Vickers asked why Councillor James Cole no longer thought the property was a heritage building. He responded that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(5)