Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 10 and 24 July 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Page 5, paragraphs 1 and 3: amend Carolyn Culver to Carolyne Culver.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Page 30, paragraph 22: amend ‘was’ to ‘should be’.

Page 32, paragraph 4: the condition states that ‘the bat box will be used to receive any bats captured during the works’ and this will be checked as bats are not allowed to be captured.

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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/01540/HOUSE in respect of an extension to the garage and a first floor extension.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Barlow, Parish Council representative, Ms Theresa Fleetwood, objector, Mr Lee Clark, applicant and Councillor Carolyne Culver, Ward Member 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.

(Councillor Carolyne Culver left the meeting room at 6.35 pm and returned at 6.37 pm)

4.    Mr Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         There were a significant number of objections/support from within the Parish and the Parish Council looked at applications objectively taking consideration of the impact on neighbouring properties.

·         The Parish Council deemed the application to be inappropriate despite the revisions made to the plans due to the close proximity and overbearing nature of the proposal on 1 Church Street, which could not be appreciated from the plans.

·         He noted that if the back or front of an existing building overlooked the side of a new build by less than 7 metres, this would contradict West Berkshire Core Strategy (CS) Policies 14 and 19.

·         The revised plans did not alleviate the impact of a high wall casting a shadow over 1 Church Street, which was of concern to the Planning Inspector at the earlier appeal.

·         The Parish Council did not believe that CS 14 was addressed with the revised plans and nor were the Council’s adopted Quality Design SPD and House Extensions SPG outline key factors.

·         They acknowledged that the applicant had submitted a light survey but it did not include consideration of direct sunlight and as it could only be used to assess the impact on gardens, it was not appropriate for a courtyard.

·         Consequently the Parish Council could not support the application. 

5.    Ms Fleetwood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She lived at 1 Church Street and had done so for the past 12 years.

·         This was the third planning application submitted by the applicant for a two storey extension but there was little difference between this one and the previous two applications.

·         The application submitted in March 2018 was refused by this Committee and dismissed at appeal as the Planning Inspector believed it would be overbearing on 1 Church Street and due to the impact on the sunlight at the rear of the house and the courtyard.

·         The second application was refused in October 2018 by this Committee as the Inspector’s concerns had not been overcome.

·         The differences between this application and the second one were insignificant as the ridge height had only been reduced by one foot and the rear wall had also only been reduced by a similar amount.

·         The light assessment did not address the issue regarding sunlight in the courtyard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.(1)