Agenda and minutes

In the absence of Councillor Tony Vickers, a temporary Vice Chairman was appointed for the duration of the meeting under Rule 7.6.2.

The Chairman proposed that Councillor Hilary Cole be elected as Vice Chairman. This was seconded by Councillor Clive Hooker, and approved.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 1 and 22 September 2021.

The Chairman noted that Councillor Lynne Doherty was not present at the meeting on 1 September 2021 but had been marked present. The amendment was accepted.

Subject to this amendment, the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2021 and the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2021 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the 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 Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2). 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.

(The Chairman declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01519/FUL in respect of Land West of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water, Enborne. Approval was sought for: 1. Construction of stabling and hard standing; 2. Change of use from agricultural to a mixed agricultural/equestrian use; 3. Soft landscaping scheme.

2.     Miss Cheyanne Kirby, Planning Officer, 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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended drainage information to delegate to the Service Director, Development and Regulation to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed below OR, in the event that satisfactory additional information on drainage is not provided within 3 months of the date of this meeting (or such longer period as to be agreed in writing by the Development control Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee) to refuse the application for the following reason:

“The application is not accompanied by sufficient information to determine that drainage and flood risk on the site can be addressed through implementation of an adequate strategy of onsite drainage measures. Therefore the application fails to meet with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2026, which requires development to be safe and not increase flood risk elsewhere and to manage surface water in a sustainable manner through the implementation of SuDS, and the recommendations of the West Berkshire Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Supplementary Planning Document (2018).”

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the application had been refused previously on Highways grounds, and that there was concern over vehicle speeds on the road. However, as the sight lines on the road were very good, there were no Highways concerns on this occasion.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Sam Eachus, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. The Chairman noted that a representative of the Parish Council had wanted to address the committee on this application, but had missed the notification deadline. Also, he also noted that Ward Member, Councillor James Cole, was unable to attend the meeting.

Agent Representation

5.     Mr Sam Eachus in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Eachus was present on behalf of the applicant, Mr David Wood.

·         In regards to grazing needs, the guidelines were for horses, not for ponies, and were only guidelines. The size and health of the horse were factors, and the two ponies could get their nutritional needs on the land. Mr Eachus believed

·         In regards to highways, Mr Eachus noted the lack of objections, and that sightlines were very good. The Highway Code does  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.(1)

(Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that it was situated within his ward. 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.)

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Planning and Highways Committee on Newbury Town Council. 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.)

(Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Cant and Carolyne Culver declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/01038/HOUSE in respect of 1 Croft Road, Newbury Wash Common. Approval was sought for a two storey extension to the side and a single storey extension to the rear.

2.     Mr Masie Masiiwa, Senior Planning Officer, 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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director – Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that Highways were satisfied that the three car parking spaces in front of the property would be maintained.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, Mr Graham Coldman and Mr Colin Gillah, objectors, Mr Jonathan Jarman, agent, and Mrs Karen Redford, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.     Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application had come before the Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee on 1 June 2021. On that occasion, the Town Council did not comment on the application due to the conflicting information from the applicants and the neighbours, and felt that it should be decided by the Planning Officers, acknowledging the real concerns of neighbours.

·         He had attended the site visit on 7 October 2021. The main concern with the site was the topography. The properties at 37 and 39 Wendan Road were considerably lower than the property at 1 Croft Road.

·         The architect’s model shown at the site visit had been useful in getting an impression of the mono-pitch roof.

·         The view of the Town Council was that the Planning Officers should decide. He noted that Officers had no objections, subject to the implementation of the stated conditions. However, Mr Foot believed that the proposed roof was too high, and should be reduced.

Member Questions to the Town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.(2)

(The Chairman and Councillor Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 20/01264/FULMAJ in respect of Fognam Farm, Upper Lambourn. Approval was sought for Equine pre-training, rest, rehabilitation and recuperation facility for racehorses, including removal of existing building, erection of new three bedroom managers house, garage store building with overnight/temporary accommodation above, conversion of existing building to form 28no. stables, new horse walker, new lunge pen, all weather turn out and canter track and associated parking and landscaping.

2.     Mr Masie Masiiwa, Senior Planning Officer, 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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director – Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the access was sufficiently wide, and sight lines on to the B-road were satisfactory. Speed surveys near the site access found that travel to the east required 126 metres of sight, and 123 were provided, and travel to the west required 118 metres of sight, and 110 were provided. This is considered insufficient, but not significant enough to cause an issue. Also, traffic generation was not considered significant enough to cause an issue.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Vicky Rieunier, Hungerford Town Council, Mr Charles Lochrane, objector, and Mr James Fraser, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     Ms Vicky Rieunier, Lambourn Parish Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Lambourn Parish Council was objecting on the basis that there were not adequate protections in place for the North Wessex Downs AONB and the Fognam Chalk Quarry SSSI, and there was a lack of information regarding the site (e.g transport survey and design and access statements).

·         Natural England’s consultation response stated that the AONB partnership or conservation board should be consulted. However, the document provided to the Committee did not contain any such consultation response, although she was aware that the AONB had had responded and raised concerns that had not been addressed.

·         The NPPF stated that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, and also that the Committee were required not only weigh all material considerations in a balanced manner, but to refuse an application unless there were exceptional circumstances and it can be demonstrated that despite giving great weight to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, the development was in the public interest.

·         The application should be considered a major development, and the, Parish Council believed that the policy tests relating to exceptional circumstances had not been satisfied, including assessment of alternative circumstances.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.(3)