Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 14 August 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 August 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Vice 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 Phil Barnett, Jeff Cant and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Items 1 and 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.

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeff Cant and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and (2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Howard Woollaston had also been lobbied on the matter. 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/01881/HOUSE in respect of a two storey side and single storey rear extension, with proposed loft to be connected into existing converted loft space at 89 Enborne Road, Newbury.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Simon Moffat, objector, and Councillor Andy Moore, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in by Councillor Moore due to the impact on the neighbour’s privacy.  The report took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations and in conclusion it detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.     Simon Moffat in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The planning application had been shown by his neighbour had originally only had two windows on the ground floor and one on the first floor. 

·         However the door that had since been inserted at the side of the extension and was referred to in the officer’s report had been removed, although the window on the first floor remained.

·         Following the construction of the outbuilding in 2018, they had had to install blinds at the back of their house as they were completely overlooked.

5.     Councillor Adrian Abbs enquired as to when they had found out about the installation of the side door and Mr Moffat replied that they had returned from holiday to find the extension being built, which included a side door.  They had raised this with the neighbour who had showed then the plans, but these were different from the original plans.

6.     Councillor Andy Moore in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had called the planning application in and, as he was a Member of the Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee, he had advised them then that he was likely to do so.  This was why there had been no one from the Town Council to make representations on the item.

·         He had called the application in following representations from Mr Moffat about overlooking of his garden and property.

·         There was a history of overlooking from the earlier construction of an outbuilding and a review of enforcement action at the property had indicated the applicant was prepared to submit plans and then change them.  Therefore he had considered that calling in the application would help discourage the applicant from doing this again.

·         He would urge the applicant to build the extension in accordance with the agreed plans and he accepted that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.(1)

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeff Cant and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Items 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Barnett had also been lobbied on the matter. 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/01850/FULD in respect of the demolition of an outbuilding and the construction of two semi-detached dwellings with highway improvements.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Gary Norman, Parish Council representative, Simon Middleton, objector, Gary Marshall, applicant and Kate Cooper, agent and Councillor Jeff Beck, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in by Councillor Beck and had received ten or more objections.  The report took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations and in conclusion it detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.  Derek Carnegie also referred the Committee to the recommended additional condition included in the Update Report.

4.     Gary Norman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was the Vice Chair of the Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee.

·         Concerns had been raised about the width of the lane and the fact that delivery vehicles would have to reverse onto Kiln Lane.

·         It was noted that Waste had not commented on the application and they were aware that the development would lead to an increase in the number of bins placed in Kiln Lane.

·         There would be an increase in the amount of traffic coming out of the lane and this was already very difficult.

·         The proposed removal of the hedges would constitute environmental damage.

·         A couple of items in the officer’s report could be interpreted differently.  For example, officers have suggested that insufficient garden space in the proposed gardens would be balanced by the provision of two houses, but this suggested that it was possible to ignore planning rules.  Also, 6.2.2 stated that the site was currently used as garden space with a small outbuilding, resulting in it being considered as previously developed land. This was very concerning as it meant that previously developed land could be anything with a shed on it, which left Newbury in great danger.

·         He was concerned, from past experience that Committee Members often followed the officer’s recommendation and therefore, this application was likely to be approved.

·         The Planning Inspector had rejected a planning application on this site in 1990 and the objections raised at the time had not been mitigated with this application. 

·         It was not an urban street, but a semi-rural lane.

5.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Mr Norman if he could explain why the width of the lane was an issue.  Mr Norman replied that when he had driven down the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.(2)