Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions
Contact: Jenny Legge / Rachel Craggs / Jo Reeves
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 25 September 2019.
The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.
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.
Councillor Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Items 4 (1) and (2) but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.
Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, James Cole and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (4) 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 Adrian Abbs, Hilary Cole, Carolyne Culver and Clive Hooker declared they had been lobbied regarding item 4(2). Councillors Adrian Abbs and Phil Barnett had also been lobbied on item 4 (4).
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).
(Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 (1) by virtue of the fact that the applicant was a donor to a children’s charity for which he was chairman. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he 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 17/02092/OUTMAJ in respect of a hybrid planning application comprising an outline planning application for up to 93 dwellings and associated works – all matters reserved; a change of use of land from agricultural to public open space; a change of use of land to provide extension to existing allotments; and a full planning application for the erection of 11 new dwellings, new access and associated works on previously developed land.
2. The Planning Officer, in introducing the report, confirmed that the presentation was in relation to the two applications although the access points to the two sites would be different. One was off the A4 Bath Road (17/02092) and the other was off the Lambourn Road (17/02093). It was noted that a number of footpaths ran across the site and it was proposed that a further 3.75m wide emergency access with shared cycle and footpath was proposed to run between the site and Station Road through the existing allotments. The proposal also included an upgrade of the existing Public Right of Way Speen 7/1 which led to Lambourn Road to facilitate improved pedestrian and cycle access.
3. The Planning Officer stated that Speen Parish Council had raised concerns over the proposed access onto the A4 Bath Road and a large number of concerns had also been raised by local residents which were set out on pages 25 and 26 of the agenda. The application site formed part of a wider land parcel with a developable area of 4.8ha that had been allocated for approximately 100 dwellings under Policy HSA2 of Housing Site Allocations DPD (2006-2026) subject to meeting the environmental parameters of the policy. The site was essential for the five year land supply.
4. To promote sustainable travel, financial contributions would be sought towards a community bus service (£9,240 per annum for five years) to retain the Community bus service.
5. According to Core Strategy Policy CS14, new development had to demonstrate high quality and sustainable design that respected and enhanced the character and appearance of the area. Policy ADDP5 sought to ensure that development proposals conserved the scenic beauty and distinctive character of the AONB. The NPPF gave the highest status of protection for the landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs and stated that their conservation should be given great weight in planning decisions. Policy HSA2 indicated that the wider housing land allocation would be developed in accordance with the Landscape Capacity Assessment (2015) which would ensure development conserved and enhanced the landscape edge to Speen and that the existing character of Speen and West Newbury ... view the full minutes text for item 30.(1)
(Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 (2) by virtue of the fact that the applicant was a donor to a children’s charity for which he was chairman. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he 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 17/02093/OUTMAJ in respect of outline planning application for up to 14 dwellings and associated works – all matters reserved except access.
2. The application site formed part of a wider parcel of land that was allocated for approximately 100 dwellings. The remainder of the parcel of the land was subject to a separate hybrid planning application under 17/02092/OUTMAJ for outline permission for 93 dwellings, new public open space, extension to existing allotments and a detailed application of 11 new dwellings, new access to the Bath Road and associated works. The applicant had requested that both applications should be determined in parallel to ensure a comprehensive and cohesive approach to the overall housing site allocation.
3. The access details comprised a new vehicular access onto Lambourn Road to the east of the A34 overbridge. The Highways Officer confirmed that no objections had been made in relation to this application in terms of highways safety and there would also be a traffic calming gateway along the Lambourn Road.
4. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Steven Smallman and David Dixon, agents, addressed the Committee on this application.
5. Mr Smallman and Mr Dixon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:
· Mr Smallman confirmed that in relation to the ecology surveys which had been raised in the previous application all Phase 1 surveys had been completed which had led to some Phase 2 surveys taking place for both sites and these had also been completed.
6. Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the vehicular access and the footpath did not follow the same route and he asked for assurance that the rural character of the Lambourn Valley Way would be maintained. Mr Smallman confirmed that that would be the case.
7. Councillor Hilary Cole stated that extensive discussion had taken place on the previous application and therefore proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers and agreed by the Committee with one abstention (Councillor Adrian Abbs).
RESOLVED that provided a Section 106 Agreement had been completed by 7 March 2020 (or such longer period that might be authorised by the Head of Development and Planning, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed below and subject to the following amended s106 Heads of Terms:
‘1. Affordable Housing
Obligations to secure 6 affordable housing units on-site comprising 4 social rented units and 2 units of an intermediate form of housing.’
OR, if ... view the full minutes text for item 30.(2)
1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/02072/REM in respect of a reserved 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. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Kevan Williams, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.
3. Jeffrey Ng 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 clearly recommended the Committee grant planning permission.
4. Paul Goddard confirmed that the application complied with the Council’s parking standards.
5. Mr Williams (Objector) in addressing the Committee made the following points:
· This application had minor dimensional changes compared to the previous application refused by the Committee and had the same appearance.
· He questioned why the application was being heard by the Committee before the determination of the appeal on the previous application.
· The style of the property should be compared to other properties on Willowmead Close, not Normay Rise.
· The house would be closer to the fence than recommended dimensions and there would be overlooking.
· The proposed condition for obscured glass for all windows to the rear of the propertywould be unenforceable.
· There was not suitable mitigation against the flood risk.
· Should the Committee be minded to approve the application there should be limitations on contractor’s parking during construction to reduce the impact on neighbours.
· The Committee should refuse the application pending the appeal.
6. Councillor Tony Vickers asked whether this application had addressed any of the concerns expressed regarding the previous application on the same site. Mr Williams stated he thought it was worse.
7. The Ward Members declined to address the Committee and stated they would raise their points during the debate.
8. Councillor Hilary Cole expressed the view that it was premature to determine the application while the appeal decision on the similar scheme was still outstanding. It was confirmed that should the Committee approve this application there could be development on the site even if the Planning Inspector refused the previous application.
9. The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Hilary Cole, as seconded by Councillor Phil Barnett, to defer the decision to after the appeal outcome is known. At the vote the motion was carried.
RESOLVED that the decision be deferred.
(The meeting was adjourned between 8.30pm and 8.40pm)
(Councillor James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 (4) by virtue of the fact that he had been acquainted with the applicant for a long time, he had been lobbied and was the Ward Member. Councillor Adrian Abbs had also been lobbied. As their interests were 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(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/02126/FULD in respect of the demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling to provide a five bedroom family home within the estate at Park House, West Woodhay, Newbury.
2. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Robert McDonald, Parish Meeting representative and Duncan Hartley, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.
3. Masie Masiiwa 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.
4. Paul Goddard apologised that there was no comment from the Highways Authority in the report. He confirmed that he had visited the property and concluded that there were acceptable sight lines so there was no objection subject to the comment in the update report.
5. Debra Inston stated that the importance of Park House came from its attachment to West Woodhay House. Park House was at least 200 years old and while the original building had been altered there was surviving elements such as the chequered brickwork which was of interest. The extensions were sympathetic and many of the original features remained. The house contained evidential value regarding methods of construction and historical value through its connection to West Woodhay House. Consideration had been given to applying a condition to reuse the bricks however the proposed dwelling was not modest in comparison to the current property and there was enough heritage value to resist demolition.
6. Mr Robert MacDonald in addressing the Committee raised the following points:
· The house was not a museum; it was a mishmash of extensions and had lost the character of its former association with West Woodhay House.
· The new house would be an attractive design and be a positive step towards enhancing the character of the area.
· The new house would be larger and suitable for modern living. Although the footprint would increase by 80% the outbuildings would be consolidated.
· The Committee had recently approved applications in respect of Haywards Green Farm which was out of keeping and a massive increase in footprint compared to the previous property on the site.
· The house would be eco-friendly and reuse the bricks of the current house. The current house did not have suitable rooflines for solar panels.
7. Councillor Tony Vickers questioned whether there really was no reason a young family would wish to live in the property. Mr Macdonald advised that the new property ... view the full minutes text for item 30.(4)
1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 19/02150/HOUSE in respect of an application for an annexe to the Old Coach House, Bath Road, Speen.
2. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Purton, applicant’s brother, and Mr Antony Staig, 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 unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers on balance recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.
4. Mr Purton and Mr Staig in addressing the Committee raised the following points:
· The applicant’s opinion differed to the case officer in respect of the effect on the rural character of the area, effect on the host property and the potential for the accommodation to be self-contained.
· There was no intention to make the annexe self-contained; it would be linked to the house and garden and be used by the applicant’s family or carers. The applicant was willing to sign a legal agreement to provide assurance to the Council regarding the occupancy.
· The annexe would be subservient to and match the main house.
· The annexe would infill between existing buildings and would not be visible form the highway.
· No objections had been submitted.
· Mr Purton explained that the applicant was his sister. She was terminally ill and the annexe would offer accommodation to him and his family so they could move in to help care for her.
5. Councillor Hilary Cole asked how access to the garages would be maintained as the construction of the annexe would make the corner even tighter. Mr Staig advised that some shrubbery would be removed. Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Members could not consider the applicant’s need in the planning determination.
6. Councillor James Cole asked whether the prospect of a legal agreement had been discussed with officers. Mr Staig reported that he had been advised the matter might be irrelevant in planning terms.
7. Mr Purton responded to a query from Councillor Carolyne Culver regarding the location of bedrooms on the plans.
8. It was noted that neither of the Ward Members were present to address the Committee. Councillor Culver reported the Councillor Steve Masters have called in the application due to the difference in opinion between the applicant and case officer but was agnostic regarding the outcome.
9. Councillor Clive Hooker asked whether there would be any implications caused by multiple occupancy. Derek Carnegie advised the Committee that the Old Coach House was already a large property with four bedrooms and the annexe would provide two more. This had the effect of creating accommodation which would be capable of forming a community and there was unease about what this could lead to, however the case officer’s judgement was finely balanced.
10. Councillor Adrian Abbs asked whether Members could be sure there would be no overlooking once foliage was removed to allow ... view the full minutes text for item 30.(5)