Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 9 August 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 August 2017 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:-

Page 5, Also Present:  remove Rachel Craggs.

Page 6, penultimate bullet, first line: ‘convenant’ should read ‘covenant’.

Page 8, Point 16, first and second lines: ‘convenant’ should read ‘covenant’.

Page 9, Point 22, first line: ‘his’ should read ‘this’.

Page 9, Point 22, second line: ‘Councillor Cole’ should read ‘Councillor Hilary Cole’.

Page 10, Section 3, first line: remove ‘or’.

Page 11, Section 8, second line: ‘has’ should read ‘have’.

Page 11, Section 9(e) first line: remove ‘1.’.

Page 11, Section 9(i), first and second line: ‘Exeedance’ should read ‘excedence’.

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 Howard Bairstow, Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item  4(1), 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 Paul Bryant 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 Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and 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 Howard Bairstow declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council but not its Planning and Highways Committee. 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 Howard Bairstow, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/01808/OUTD in respect of an outline application for the erection of a dwelling with integral garage.

2.     Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  The application had been brought to Committee as it had received in excess of 10 objections.  The Update Sheet included an additional condition that recommended the removal of permitted development rights for the construction of dormer windows in the roof of the dwelling.  In conclusion the reported detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.  Officers consequently recommended that the Committee grant outline planning permission.

3.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Adrian Edwards, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

4.     Councillor Edwards in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The current property was a substantial house with a generous amount of garden, typical of the other houses in Normay Rise.

·         The garden was adjacent to Willowmead Close, which had houses and gardens of a similar size.

·         The development would overlook the existing house at 5 Normay Rise as it would be built on a significant slope.

·         Newbury Town Council’s Town Design Statement published in 2005 was referred to in the planning officer’s report.  It stated that one of the principles of the Statement was to conserve the garden suburb character of the area and this application did not meet this principle.

·         However the planning officer did not quote the reference to Normay Rise on Page 60 of the Statement or sections 5.1 and 5.4 on Page 63 which stated that the ‘garden suburbs’ enhanced the gateway into Newbury and should be preserved.

·         The development would compromise the street scene by reducing the garden size making it cramped.

·         It was overdevelopment and would create a precedent for other residents to build in their gardens.

·         He asked the Committee to refuse the outline application.

5.     Councillor Paul Bryant sought clarification of the need for the additional condition in the Update Report, related to removal of the permitted development rights for the construction of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.(1)

(Councillor Paul Bryant declared that he had had discussion with the applicant in relation to Agenda Item 4(2).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/00939/FUL in respect of change of use of a section of orchard land to garden use, erection of an oak framed car port and turning area.

2.     Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  The application had been brought to Committee following a Ward Member call-in by Councillor Paul Bryant.  In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable, as it was contrary to Policies C6 and C8 and insufficient evidence had been provided by the applicant to suggest otherwise.  Officers consequently recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

3.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Bjian Mohandes, Applicant and Councillor Paul Bryant, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

4.     Bjian Mohandes in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      He and his wife had lived at Highwood Farm since 1995 and had kept and maintained the ‘Orchard’ as a garden.

·      They applied for a certificate of lawfulness in December 2013 but it was refused on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been submitted to show that the land had been used as garden land for a continuous period of 10 years.

·      In September 2015 they reapplied but were refused for the same reason.

·      Following a meeting with the planning service, they were advised to apply through a planning application, which it was suggested might be more successful if the area was reduced to half the orchard.

·      Their current planning application for half of the orchard was based on the planning service’s belief that it was a one bedroom property.  Consequently, as it was a larger property, they were advised to re-apply for advice if they wanted to update the property details under a new pre-planning application.

·      Following discussions with Councillor Bryant, he had suggested that they should further reduce the area to make the application more acceptable and they had also taken on board other suggestions from planning officers.

·      Therefore, they had tried to accommodate all the suggestions that had been made and believed the application should be approved for the following reasons.  It did not negatively impact on the bridleway, it was in harmony with the other structures, it was not visible from the road and it reduced the risks associated with lack of parking space and access by emergency services.

5.     Councillor James Cole questioned whether the curtilage was higher at the rear of the property and Mr Mohandes confirmed it was, which was why they were unable to create a parking area in this location.

6.     Councillor Anthony Pick noted that a photograph of the elevations of the car port was not available.

7.     Councillor Garth Simpson enquired about the purpose of the existing derelict building and Mr Mohandes explained they would use this for relaxation.   

8.     Councillor Paul Bryant in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.(2)