Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 5 April 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2017 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

Agenda, page 3, point 2: remove ‘and 9 May 2015.’

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 Clive Hooker declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and 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.

1.         (Councillor Clive Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member and had been lobbied. 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.)

2.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/00190/ADV in respect of 5 directional fascia board signs to advertise the Ibex Inn, Chaddleworth.

3.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Graeme Murphy, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which was brought to Committee following deferment of the application at the previous meeting. Members’ attention was drawn to the update report which outlined that since the previous meeting it had been agreed that a form of traditional brown directional sign could be accepted by the Parish Council so long as the signs were not erected on Highway Authority land. In conclusion the proposal was  now satisfactory and Officers were now pleased to recommend the Committee grant planning permission.

5.         Graeme Murphy in addressing the Committee stated that at the previous meeting he had pleaded with the Committee to grant permission and he was pleased to learn of the amended recommendation. Councillor Hilary Cole advised that the plea was acknowledged and Members recognised the work that the officers and applicants had done together.

6.         Councillor Paul Bryant proposed that the Committee accept the officers’ revised recommendation to grant planning permission; this was seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole. The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal which at the vote was carried.

7.         RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission so long as the signs were not erected on Highway Authority land.

(No declarations were received.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/00420/FUL in respect of a replacement of existing store with a building for seven bedrooms, single storey link and extension to restaurant at The Fox and Hounds, Oxford Road, Donnington, Newbury.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Stephen Wrzesinski, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Michael Butler 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 clearly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission

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

·                     He extended the applicant’s apologies to the Committee for not being able to attend the meeting.

·                     He explained that the red line on the application drawing denoted the curtilage of the pub and that this was the same drawing that had been discussed at pre-application. Concurrent with the pre-application discussions with Officers, the applicant was negotiating a 15 year lease for land to the south of the pub, to be used for car parking.

·                     An agreement had now been reached on the lease, but due to the cost of an additional planning application fee of £1,600, the applicant had not resubmitted the plans with the parking area included within the red line.

·                     He informed the Committee that all the construction activity could be retained within the current red lined area and that there would be 13 parking spaces made available once construction had been completed.

·                     He was happy to discuss the proposed design of the units. The buildings would be subservient to the pub and would replicate the existing barn, in style. The single storey restaurant balanced the buildings and did not detract from the existing coaching inn. The development would not harm the rural character of the area.

5.         Councillor Paul Bryant enquired if the recently agreed 15 year lease was renewable. Mr Wrzesinski confirmed that it was.

6.         Councillor Hilary Cole asked who owned the wide verge adjacent to the pub. Mr Wrzesinski offered the view that it was part owned by the Highway Authority and the landowner.

7.         Councillor Anthony Pick inquired what materials would be used in the construction. Mr Wrzesinski averred that the new buildings would be sympathetic in design to the existing pub and used similar materials.

8.         Councillor Garth Simpson asked the Planning Officers what change to the tenure of the leased land would make the planning application acceptable. Michael Butler explained that the leased land needed to be included in the red lined area to ensure that any conditions placed on the approval could also be applied to the leased area.

9.         Councillor Cole, as ward member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     She explained that she had called-in the application as she was aware that rural public houses were suffering and it would be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(2)

(No declarations were received.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 16/02191/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for erection of 11 dwellings with associated access, car parking, landscaping and sustainable drainage infrastructure. Matters to be considered: Access and Layout at land east Of Laylands Green and south of Craven Close, Kintbury.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Steven Cook, Parish Council representative, Mr Lee Coleman, objector, and Mr Philip Simmons and Ms Lisa Jackson, agents, 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. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

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

·         His primary concern was the landscape buffer bordering Villa Real which was proposed to be reduced to 10ft from 20ft.

·         He was also concerned that mature trees may be removed from the border of the site.

·         Should the landscape buffer zone fall within the curtilage of the proposed 11 properties, there might be a risk that future residents would cut these back.

·         The development would have a harmful impact on the traffic in Kintbury which was already a problem.

·         The site had issues with flooding and there was subsidence in the local area.

·         Kintbury residents were concerned about the cumulative impact of the delivery of this site, the other two Kintbury sites in the Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) plus an additional site owned by Donnington New Homes with extant planning permission which had not yet been delivered.

5.    Councillor Anthony Pick noted that he had encountered traffic on his journey to the site visit and enquired what parking restrictions were used in Kintbury. Mr Cook responded that there were double yellow lines around the village shops and on corners but no additional restrictions.

6.    Mr Coleman, in addressing the Committee, raised the following points:

·         The delay in the determination of the application demonstrated that the site was not appropriate for development.

·         There was no need for more housing in Kintbury.

·         The DPD provided a strong basis for delivery of the site however the Inspector applied conditions following the Examination of the DPD which must be followed.

·         The landscape buffer zone would run through plots one to seven.

·         The plans used by officers in their introduction to the Committee were misleading and gave the appearance that there would be more vegetation than was proposed.

·         National guidance stated that private gardens should not include landscape buffer zones unless it was outlined in the DPD and there was no mention of this in HSA27 (the DPD policy relating to the site).

·         The plans showed incorrect boundaries between the existing properties and Laylands Green. The property owners Land Registry documents demonstrated that they owned the land the road was on.

·         The road was narrow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(3)

1.         (The meeting was adjourned between 8.12pm and 8.17pm.)

2.         (Councillor Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(4) by virtue of the fact that he was ward Member and had been lobbied. 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. However, he would vacate the chair for the item and Councillor Paul Bryant would take his place.)

(Councillor Paul Bryant in the Chair)

3.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Applications 16/02452/FULD and 16/02453/LBC2 in respect of a conversion of existing stables to C3 residential and erection of new build C3 residential (creation of 7 units in total), with associated access, parking and hard and soft landscaping at Manor Farm, Fidlers Lane, East Ilsley, RG20 7LG.

4.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Roger Hick, Parish Council representative, Mr Simon Spencer, objector, Mr James Page, supporter and Mrs Sara Dutfield, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

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

·                     The Parish Council supported the application.

·                     He posited the background of the application. The site had extant consent for commercial buildings, however this had raised great concern within the village due to the increase traffic flow this would cause. Following the approval, the Parish Council had approached the applicant and asked if they would consider a residential scheme on the site. This would remove all concerns and would be beneficial to the village.

6.         Mr Spencer in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     He lived in No. 3 Sheepdown, which was adjacent to the site and was concerned with the boundary with his property and how this would be affected by the change of use. There would need to be a change of level from the paddock to the roadway. He asked that a condition be put in place for the boundary treatment, to construct a retaining wall.

·                     In the previous application there had been provision made for such a wall, but in this proposal there was only an agreement for appropriate treatment of the boundary. He felt that the reduction in ground level and change of use should be taken into account and a retaining wall be conditioned.

7.         Councillor James Cole noted that No. 2 Sheepdown had an existing retaining wall. He asked what type of boundary treatment was in place for No.3 Sheepdown. Mr Spencer replied that he had a fence. He reiterated that when the levels were reduced the existing retaining wall would need to be refigured, but this had not been specified in the conditions.

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

·                     He was a commercial property specialist in the Thames Valley and had been involved with the previous application at the behest of the Parish Council.

·                     The objection to the previous application had been on the grounds of increased traffic, which had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(4)

(No declarations were received.)

(Councillor Paul Bryant vacated the Chair and Councillor Clive Hooker resumed his place as Chairman.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 17/00360/HOUSE in respect of a loft conversion, including rear skylights and change of use of bedroom to office in Love Lane, Donnington, Newbury.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Alex Simeunovic, 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 a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

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

·         He was the owner of the property and the application before the committee was a continuation of a previous application he had submitted. That application was for a dormer window in the loft and had been declined.

·         The new application now included skylights instead of a dormer, but 15 Love Lane had fitted a dormer as part of their loft conversion.

·         The property was intended for use as a family home but they might wish to rent out two of the bedrooms. The application for a license as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) had been submitted for that reason.

5.    Councillor Anthony Pick asked why the applicant wished to covert the loft space. Mr Simeunovic replied that there was a good space in the loft which was currently being wasted and he would like to use it. There would be no increase to the number of bedrooms as one of the rooms would now be used as an office.

6.    Councillor Paul Bryant, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Parish Council did not object to the loft conversion but did have concerns that three spaces would not be a sufficient amount of car parking for a property which could have a large number of occupants.

·         Love Lane was a busy road which was a bus route, had schools along the road and chicanes.

·         The site was overdeveloped.

·         A condition applied to a previous application on the site precluded new openings.

·         A previous application for change of use to a HMO was refused because the property lacked sufficient car parking.

·         It was hard to imagine the property as a family home as it would have seven bedrooms. Sitting rooms could also be used as bedrooms.

·         The development would cause Love Lane to become a ‘little Slough’.

·         It would be a mistake to permit further extension of the property and would not be an example of good planning.

7.    Councillor Adrian Edwards expressed the view that he could understand the financial benefit to the applicant to rent out rooms and asked whether the Highways Authority would require additional parking should this be the case. Paul Goddard advised that he had difficulty knowing what was actually  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(5)