Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 September 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2016 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

Item 24, page 5, 4^th paragraph, 4th line: change ‘Planning Policy Task Group’ to ‘Planning Advisory Group’

Item 24, page 5, 4^th paragraph, 5th line: change ‘proposal’ to ‘suggestion’ and change ‘seconded’ to ‘supported’.

Item 26 (1), page 7, paragraph 10, 9^th bullet: change ‘and’ to ‘to’ and change ‘roof light to’ to ‘roof light of’.

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 Paul Hewer declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillor Virginia von Celsing declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) and (3), but reported that, as her interest was a personal, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she 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 16/02277/HOUSE in respect of 3 Church Street, Hungerford and a replacement garage building to rear of the property.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ben Hutchins, objector, and Mr Kevin Brearley and Mr David Moore, applicant and 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. Permission was sought to replace the single storey garage buildings with a triple garage with workshop/garden room, car port, and a home office above. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers strongly recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.            Councillor Anthony Pick recalled that the Committee had visited a neighbouring property on the site visit and enquired what the distance from the proposed garage that property was; Derek Carnegie responded that it was 15m.

5.            In response to a query from Councillor Adrian Edwards, Derek Carnegie indicated that the Conservation Officer’s comments were on page 18 of the agenda.

6.            Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the application had come before the Committee for determination due to the number of objections. She advised that she had read the 23 letters of objection and was disappointed that only three had provided the name and address of the objector. For a minor application, the level of objection was extreme so she whould like to know where the other twenty objectors lived.

7.            Councillor Paul Bryant sought clarification on the positioning of the proposed garage in relation to the road.

8.            Mr Hutchins in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He was the resident at 1 Oaks Court, which had been visited by the Committee on their site visit.

·                    He welcomed the plan to replace the garage but objected to the proposed two storey garage which would be overbearing.

·                    He was concerned that other garages could be converted and lead to further development on the byway.

·                    This plan was no different to the plan which was withdrawn the previous year due to its scale, bulk and impact.

·                    The windows of the guest suite would overlook his property and garden.

·                    The proposed garage would front directly onto a road.

·                    The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on his privacy and was not inkeeping with the single storey garages in the area.

·                    The Council’s own policies stated there should be a distance of 21m between facing windows.

·                    The application proposed a change of use to living space.

·                    His right to privacy was protected by the Human Rights Act and local and national planning policies.

9.            In response to a query from Members, Derek Carnegie advised that officers had considered the potential impact of the windows and believed the proposal sufficiently addressed any concerns.

10.         Councillor Cole stated that Mr Hutchins’ had the only property which would be directly affected by the proposed garage and asked what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.(1)

(Councillor Paul Hewer declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was employed by Sovereign Housing, the proposed affordable housing provider. As his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter.)

(Councillor Virginia von Celsing declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she was acquainted with the agent. As her interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she 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 16/01052/FULMAJ in respect of Prosperous Home Farm, Salisbury Road, Hungerford and an application to renovate existing buildings and erect new dwellings, including two affordable housing units.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Martin Crane, Parish Council representative and Mr Rod Kent and Mr Stuart Roberts, 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. The proposal was for the removal of existing agricultural buildings/structures to facilitate the creation of 7 dwellings; including the conversion and extension of 4 traditional agricultural buildings and grain silos, and the erection of 3 new build dwellings, two of which would be affordable, with associated parking, turning, landscaping, private amenity space, ecological enhancements, and provision of footway to existing bus stop. There would also be improvements to the existing farmhouse; including the removal of an existing car port, erection of new garage, remodelling works and the erection of replacement single storey agricultural storage barn. 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.

4.            Councillor Hooker asked why the Highways objection had only been received on the day of the Committee meeting. Derek Carnegie responded that the Highways Team had been in constant discussions with the applicant but needed to reach a conclusion.

5.            Paul Goddard explained that Highways officers had assessed the proposals and noted the proposed footpath to a bus stop on the A338. The sight lines onto the A338 were almost at an acceptable level considering the speed of the road. The Highways Team sought for developments of over five dwellings to have roads built to adoptable standards but this would not be possible as there would not be sufficient width within the red line of the planning application.

6.            Councillor Anthony Pick noted the connection with Jethro Tull who was an important historical figure and asked whether any of the buildings dated from his occupation of the farm. Derek Carnegie advised that the majority of the buildings would not. Councillor Pick further sought clarification on the proposed large house and noted that the Council’s new Housing Sites  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.(2)

(Councillor Virginia von Celsing declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she was acquainted with the agent. As her interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 16/02365/FUL in respect of Scilla, High Street, Compton for the demolition of the existing bungalow and replacement with new two storey dwellings.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Thomason, Parish Council representative, and Mr Steve Simkins, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. The proposal was considered to be of a high quality design which should be encouraged. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers strongly recommended the Committee grant planning permission

4.            Mr Thomason (Parish Council representative) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He had been appointed by the Parish Council to give a statement on their behalf.

·                    The proposal would not be in keeping with the street scene or the village design statement. It was a contemporary design in a prominent location.

·                    The flat roof was alien to Berkshire housing design.

5.            Councillor Pick noted that the Compton Village Design Statement supported a variety of styles and was in favour of innovation. Mr Thomason responded that they supported the gable as an architectural feature but the flat roof did not correspond with the street scene.

6.            Councillor Garth Simpson noted that the scale was compatible with the street scene and asked what the most important design feature was to the Parish Council. Mr Thomason responded that the box appearance did not sit comfortably with the high street.

7.            Councillor Clive Hooker asked whether the tree to the front of the site would be protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO); Derek Carnegie advised that the tree was situated away from the site and a TPO was not required.

8.            Councillor Edwards enquired whether the Parish Council had spoken with the Conservation Officer before submitting their objection. Mr Thomason responded that he did not know the answer to that query.

9.            Mr Simkins (Agent) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The design followed the pattern of development along the high Street and had the same position and building line as the current bungalow.

·                    The front garden would be retained.

·                    The mix of roof styles reflected the variety of the street.

·                    Local material would be used to complement the two immediately neighbouring properties.

·                    The Village Design Statement encouraged distinctive features.

·                    It would be a high quality building and complied with policy.

10.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked whether the applicant had consulted with their neighbours prior to submitting the application. Mr Simkins responded that he knew the two immediate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.(3)