Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 February 2018 and 14 March 2018.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 21 February and 14 March 2018 were approved as a true and correct record 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.

Councillor Hilary Cole declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(3), but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Jeff Beck, James Cole and Virginia von Celsing 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 Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of Chieveley Parish Council and was present at the meeting when the application was discussed. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or 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 18/00223/FULD in respect of a proposal to erect a detached dwelling, garaging and associated works on land adjacent to Morphe, Downend, Chieveley.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mike Belcher, Parish Council representative, Mr Richard Griffiths, objector, Mr Mark Campbell, agent and Councillor Hilary Cole, speaking as Ward Member 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.  He advised that the planning application had been called in by Councillor Hilary Cole due to concerns from residents about the effect on the footpath and ten letters of objection had also been received.  However, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.         Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment on the highways matters.  He advised that access to the site was over a footpath and if the Committee was minded to grant planning consent, it did not mean that the site would have vehicular access, as this issue would need to be resolved by the applicant.  In his opinion, vehicular movements from the site would be minimal.  However, the Construction Management Plan included in the conditions, required that the footpath was restored to its original state once construction on the site had been completed.

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

·           The Parish Council did not have any objections to the development.

·           Their concerns were in relation to the narrow and rustic nature of Morphe Lane and the fact that it was a Public Right of Way (PROW), which meant it was used as a footpath by walkers.

·           If Members granted planning consent, the Parish Council requested that visitors to the property were made aware of the status of the footpath to enable priority to be given to pedestrians and repairs were made, following any damage.  Therefore, they hoped the pedestrian right of way would be sympathetically protected.

·           As parking in the lane would cause an obstruction, parking should be provided on the site for construction traffic.

·           A condition was requested requiring reasonable hours for construction work on the site.

·           Suitable screening was required following construction in order to protect neighbouring properties.

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

·           He was representing some of the objectors.

·           The site where the house would be constructed was within the settlement boundary, but the footpath was not.  Therefore the usual presumption in favour of development did not apply to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02772/FULC in respect of change of use of a grain storage building to B8 use class at the Grain Store, Wyld Court Farm.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Barlow, Parish Council representative, Mr Alexander Dick, adjacent Parish Council representative, Mr George Greenham, objector, Mr Peter Danks, agent and Councillor Virginia von Celsing, speaking as Ward Member, 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.  He advised that the planning application had been called in to the Committee as 97 objections had been received from residents in relation to traffic congestion.  However, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.         Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment on the highways matters.  He advised that the facility was currently being used as a grain store that could accommodate one thousand tonnes, with access to the site from the B4009.  The sight lines to the left of the site were substandard, but whether this was an issue depended on vehicle movements.  Highways officers had had difficulty in calculating the traffic that the change in usage would generate.

5.         The applicant had advised that the grain store with dryer could be used twice a year, with some 130 fifteen tonne tractor and trailers delivering the grain to the store and larger 29 tonne vehicles removing the grain.  With other movements such as monitoring, there could be up to 470 vehicle movements per annum.  Consequently there were periods when there was a considerable amount of activity and others when there was no activity.  However this averaged out at one traffic movement in and out per day.  While this was much disputed by residents, there was no evidence to cast doubt on the information provided by the applicant.

6.         It was difficult to project the vehicle movements following a change to B8 usage, as it would depend what type of B8 the facilities were used for.  For example, if they were used for self-storage there would be a low level of vehicle activity.  A B8 use, similar to that of the joinery workshop already operating with B8 usage, would also be low.  On the other hand, the facilities could be used for parcel distribution with up to four heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) coming in and out of the site per day.

7.         However, the latter use was considered unlikely as such uses were usually located near the strategic road network.  It was also stressed that the size of the storage facilities should be taken into account, as they comprised two units with a total floor area of 510 square metres.  Consequently any HGVs accessing the site would not be large and frequent.

8.         Paul Goddard referred the Committee to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which stated that a planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

In accordance with point 7.2.8 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman asked the Committee if they were in agreement with continuing the meeting past 10.00 pm if necessary.  At the vote the motion was carried.

(Councillor James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he knew one of the objectors on a personal basis and he had been lobbied on the application.  Councillors Jeff Beck, Hilary Cole and Virginia von Celsing had also been lobbied on the item.  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.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/01550/FULEXT in respect of change of use of agricultural land to land for siting 40 additional holiday lodges, construction of access road, parking spaces and hard standing bases and associated landscape planting and infrastructure at land south of Lower Farm, Hambridge Lane, Newbury.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Adrian Abbs, Mr Frank Chitty and Ms Sarah McGonnell, objectors, Mr Nick Laister, agent and Councillor Billy Drummond, speaking as Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Jake Brown introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  He advised that the recommendation had been amended in the Update Report to allow a reasonable time for the planning obligation to be completed.  He concluded that officers were recommending approval, having taken account of the Planning Inspector’s reasons for overturning the applicant’s previous application.  However, the considerations were finely balanced

4.         Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment on the highways matters.  He advised that Highways officers had objected to the previous application.  However it was overturned at Appeal, which was probably because it included access improvements that the Planning Inspector found to be acceptable.  The previous application had comprised 25 units with an estimated 30 vehicular movements into the site and 30 out on a daily basis.  The estimates for the current application were an additional 48 vehicular movements into the site and 48 out on a daily basis.

5.         It was noted that there was no one present from Greenham Parish Council to address the Committee on the application.

6.         Mr Abbs, Mr Chitty and Ms McGonnell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Point 6.3 in the officer’s report relating to the ‘Impact on Heritage Assets’ had underplayed the impact the development would have on the Pigeon’s Farm heritage buildings as the buffer between them would be eroded.

·           Point 6.4.4 of the officer’s report in relation to the impact of noise was also incorrect as the units would have outdoor verandas and there had already been an increase in noise from the current units.

·           There was an error in the applicant’s report at point 5.5, which stated that Great Crested Newts were absent from the site, which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.