West Berkshire Council

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions

Contact: Jenny Legge 

Items
No. Item

5.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 180 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 27 November 2019.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

6.

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Hilary Cole declared an interest in Agenda Items (4) 2 and 3 but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and might vote on the matter.

Councillor James Cole declared an interest in Agenda Items (4) 2 and 3 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 Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared an interest in all Agenda Items 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.

Councillor Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Items (4) 1 and 4, but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Adrian Abbs declared an interest in Agenda Item(4) 4, 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.

7.

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).

Minutes:

The Committee resolved to vary the order in which the items would be discussed, due to the personal circumstances of the applicants.

7.(1)

Application No. and Parish: 19/02676/HOUSE, 37A Russell Road, Newbury pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Proposal:

Section 73: Variation of Condition 2 - Approved plans and Condition 3 - Materials of previously approved application 18/00541/HOUSE: Demolish single-storey garage and rear conservatory. Proposed two-storey side and rear extensions and loft conversion, to create large family home. Widen existing dropped kerb access to provide four off-road parking spaces.

Location:

37A Russell Road, Newbury.

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs Richardson

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(4) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and in all but Councillor Cant’s case, served on its Planning and Highways Committee. 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.)

(Councillors Carolyne Culver and Adrian Abbs declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(4) by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied. 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(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/02676/HOUSE in respect of a Section 73: Variation of Condition 2 - Approved plans and Condition 3 - Materials of previously approved application 18/00541/HOUSE: Demolish single-storey garage and rear conservatory. Proposed two-storey side and rear extensions and loft conversion, to create large family home. Widen existing dropped kerb access to provide four off-road parking spaces.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Taig McNab and Mr James Green objectors, and Mr James Sopp (Hungerford Design), 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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.     Mr Green and Mr McNab in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Green noted that there were two principle issues regarding the impact of this proposed scheme on his property, No.37, which were the loss of light due to the enlarged side extension near to his boundary, and the overbearing nature of the design.

·         In order to reduce the impact on his neighbour Mr McNab’s property, the design increased the impact on his property, as a trade-off.

·         In the previous application the roof had been massive but balanced, however the new design left it unbalanced and ugly.

·         The extension was overbearing and ugly.

·         He was surprised that the original consent had been granted.

·         Mr McNab stated that the new roof line did not comply with policy, SPG section 4, as the amended roof line was not subservient and was a storey taller than the original property.

·         Objections had been made as the design was ugly, and he would rather have the extant design with a more balanced roof.

·         The application had been deferred by the Western Area Planning Committee on 18 December 2019, so that more information could be provided regarding shadowing. However, he felt that the diagram provided was misleading, as it did not compare different times of day or year, but was a single snapshot of a day in spring. He considered the deferment as a waste of time and money.

·         He asked that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(1)

7.(2)

Application No. and Parish: 19/01540/HOUSE, Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill, Hampstead Norreys pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Proposal:

Extension to garage and first floor extension.

Location:

Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill, Hampstead Norreys.

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs Clark.

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and in all but Councillor Cant’s case, served on its Planning and Highways Committee. 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 Carolyne Culver Abbs declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied. 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 19/01540/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, Mr Andrew Wilcock and Ms Theresa Fleetwood, objector, Mr James McCall, supporter, and Mr Lee Clark applicant, 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.

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

        The Parish Council were against this third application. They were concerned about the projection of the building to the rear of the property and felt it was inappropriate and overbearing.

        It was understood that in this area houses were squeezed in amongst each other and that this modern house would affect the back of the existing property.

        Developments had to take into consideration the wellbeing of neighbours, and the Parish Council felt that a side-by-side design would have been acceptable.

        There would be significant shadowing of the courtyard of the neighbouring property.

        The proposal would not make a positive contribution to the area.

        The courtyard was the only available outside space for the residents of No.1. The high wall would make the space prison-like.

        The first application was dismissed as unacceptable due to the impact on the neighbours living conditions. The second application had been dismissed by WBC. The Parish Council recommended that the third application should also be dismissed, as the design could be modified with the extension being moved to a different location on the site, where it would not impact on the courtyard.

5.     Councillor Hilary Cole noted that according to the plans, the extension was towards the front of Cherry Hinton and some distance from the boundary of No.1. She was unable to see how this would result in the view from the courtyard being that of a large brick wall. Mr Barlow explained that the underlying Ordnance Survey map was incorrect and the plan did not give a true view.

6.     Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(2)

7.(3)

Application No. and Parish: 18/00603/COMIND, Newbury Football Club, Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2AD pdf icon PDF 156 KB

Proposal:

Renewal and expansion of existing football pitch including artificial pitches.

Location:

Newbury Football Club, Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2AD.

Applicant:

Newbury Community Football Group (NCFG).

Recommendation:

DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to make representations at appeal that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and in all but Councillor Cant’s case, served on its Planning and Highways Committee. 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.)

(Councillors Howard Woollaston and Hilary Cole declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the London Road Industrial Estate Project Board. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate but may abstain on the matter.)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 1818/00603/COMIND in respect the renewal and expansion of existing football pitch including artificial pitches.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Gary Norman, Parish Council representative, Mr Lee McDougal (Newbury Community Football Group) and Mr Duncan Crook (Ressance), applicant/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 acceptable and that representations at appeal should be made that planning permission should be granted.

4.     The Chairman reiterated that the Committee were not making a decision to approve the application, but rather a recommendation to advise the Planning Inspector.

5.     Mr Norman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The time had come to speak of sport, specifically football, but others as well.

·         It was time to look forward and the future started now. Newbury Football Club men’s team was two divisions lower, and the women’s team could not accept promotion because the pitch was not of an acceptable quality. There was no longer a youth team. The time had come to do something about it.

·         At the Western Area Planning meeting on 18 December 2019, the application to develop the Waterside building had been approved, and he hoped that the Committee would regard this application in the same mould, as a much needed facility for young people.

·         It was important for Newbury Town Football club to have a suitable quality pitch in a suitable location, as soon as possible. If an equivalent site were available, it would have been found already.  In the absence of plans for an alternative site, this was the only show in town.

·         Newbury Town Council urged the Committee to approve the application.

6.     Councillor Hilary Cole expressed confusion, as she understood that an alternative site had been found. Mr Norman explained that the alternative site was not of the required quality, and therefore the football team had been relegated by two divisions.

7.     Mr Crook in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He complimented  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(3)

7.(4)

Application No. and Parish: 18/00604/OUT, Newbury Football Club, Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2AD pdf icon PDF 152 KB

Proposal:

Outline permission for replacement of clubhouse and stand at Newbury Football Ground. Matters to be considered: Access and Layout.

Location:

Newbury Football Club, Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2AD.

Applicant:

Newbury Community Football Group (NCFG)

Recommendation:

DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to make representations at appeal that outline planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and in all but Councillor Cant’s case, served on its Planning and Highways Committee. 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.)

(Councillors Howard Woollaston and Hilary Cole declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the London Road Industrial Estate Project Board. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and may abstain on the matter.)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/00604/OUT in respect of an outline permission for replacement of clubhouse and stand at Newbury Football Ground. Matters to be considered: Access and Layout.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Lee McDougal (Newbury Community Football Group) and Mr Duncan Crook (Ressance), applicant/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 acceptable and that representations at appeal should be made that planning permission should be granted.

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

·         The application had not been made out of frustration, but out of a genuine hope that the Planning Inspector would approve it.

·         He felt they had shown the economic viability of redeveloping the site and that this was the best use of the land.

·         It was difficult to understand where another site could be found that would be so widely used and be able to positively generate income.

5.     Mr McDougal in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was trying to create teams for the under 18’s and under 23’s, but was in a chicken and egg situation. He could not attract youngster to the team as there was no ground, and he could not warrant a ground without having teams who wanted to play.

·         The current ground had no clubhouse and parents simply dropped off their children and left. A clubhouse would provide an area for parents and players to mingle and create a community atmosphere. He asked Members to not underestimate the value of a meeting place.

6.     Councillor Claire Rowles asked if the intention was to use the facility for the wider community or just for the football club. Mr Crook explained that the application was not only on behalf of a single club, but for the entire footballing community. It would play a wider social role, in charitable events, for example. Having a decent facility would be positive for the health and wellbeing of players. It would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(4)

8.

Appeal Decisions relating to Western Area Planning Committee pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Western Area Planning Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Western Area.