Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 10 June 2020.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Adrian Abbs raised a point of order regarding concerns about the public’s right to participate in planning meetings. He noted that the West Berkshire Licensing Committee had allowed members of the public to participate in person, and other councils, such as Basingstoke and Deane had been able to allow individuals to participate virtually in planning meetings.

He queried that as the technology and processes had been shown to work well over the last few weeks, whether the Western Area Planning Committee would be prepared to push for the resumption of speaking rights. He was concerned, as there were some elements of the written submissions where he would have queried the speakers, and he was uneasy that he had all the information necessary to make an informed decision.

The Chairman advised that he would talk with Members of the Eastern and District Planning committees to gain a consensus of opinion. Councillor Tony Vickers asked for this discussion to be minuted.

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 Jeff Cant and Tony Vickers declared an interest in all three 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 James Cole declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), 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.

Councillor Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(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 Phil Barnett and James Cole declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), 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 James Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum and was until recently a member of the Ramblers Association Committee for West Berkshire and since all applications are adjacent to public rights of way, this interest was relevant. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied in respect of the application.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01083/FUL in respect of a replacement dwelling.

2.            Sarah Melton introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers strongly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

Removal of Speaking Rights

3.            As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had been replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

4.            In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution written submissions had been received from the applicant, Ashley Jones.

5.            The written submission were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Applicant’s Submission

Our ambition is straightforward. We wish to create a better home for our family by replacing an unattractive 4 bedroom bungalow with an attractive and sustainable, 4 bedroom home of high quality design and construction.

We would like to address the WAPC agenda report, with the hope that our application, which is widely supported by neighbours and local residents, receives a fair hearing at committee.

1.    Height

This is a two storey dwelling with reduced eaves and bedrooms pushed into the loft space. There is no scope, as in WAPC agenda, 1.1, to provide further accommodation in the loft. As the officer rightly identifies, the available loft height is a maximum of 1.6m at the ridge.

The proposed property will be 30cm higher and not 1.7m higher than the telegraph pole, as suggested by the officer in WAPC site photographs page 12. This photo is misleading due to perspective. Neighbouring dwelling The Glenn is circa 2.5m higher than the proposed dwelling. Relative building heights are demonstrated,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(1)

Councillor James Cant declared a person interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum and was until recently a member of the Ramblers Association Committee for West Berkshire and since all applications are adjacent to public rights of way, this interest was relevant. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied in respect of the application.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00540/FUL in respect of the erection of a general purpose agricultural storage building to allow storage of grain; other agricultural products; and farm machinery.

2.            Councillor Clive Hooker noted that the application had been referred to committee due to more than 10 letters of objection being received.

3.            Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and it was recommended to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

4.            Paul Goddard was invited to provide observations on highway matters relating to the application. He noted the internal layout and access onto the highway were acceptable. He remarked that the short section of road connecting to the B4001 was relatively narrow for HGVs and he noted the objections from the racehorse industry. However, he stated that the site would attract just 18 HGV trips per year (nine to and nine from the site, so the impact would not be severe. Therefore the Highways Authority had no objection.

Removal of Speaking Rights

5.            As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had been replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

6.            In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution written submissions had been received from Lambourn Parish Council, Nick Lawrence, Sue and Mike Lawrence, Robert Hall and Nicky Henderson, objectors and Robert Prescott, agent.

7.            The written submission were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Parish Council Representation

Lambourn Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds:

1.    It will have an intrusive and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(2)

(Councillor James Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum and was until recently a member of the Ramblers Association Committee for West Berkshire and since all applications are adjacent to public rights of way, this interest was relevant. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillors James Cole and Phil Barnett declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied in respect of the application.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 20/00612/FULD in respect of a Section 73A variation of condition (2) plans of approved 18/02374/FULD – demolition of 2-bed dwelling house and erection of new 3-bed dwelling house

2.            Lydia Mather introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. She summarised her conclusions by noting that in terms of amenity, the application was considered acceptable as the increase in height of 30cm was not enough to warrant refusal, and the impact of the noise from the air source heat pump on the adjacent property would be mitigated with acoustic screening.

3.            In terms of impact on the character of area, the cladding would be put in place with the addition to the condition that it should not be painted, so as to blend in better with the landscape.

4.            Considerable harm had been caused to the setting from the loss of trees, which had made the building more prominent in its surroundings. The proposed planting scheme differed from what was meant to be retained to the south of the property, but this was considered acceptable. There was an additional recommended condition in the Update Report regarding supplementary lower level planting to be put in place, while trees matured.

5.            In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and approval was justifiable, subject to the conditions contained in the report and on the Update Sheet. Therefore, on balance, officer’s recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

Removal of Speaking Rights

6.            As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had been replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

7.            In accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(3)

No appeal decisions were available relating to the Western Area.