Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 19 September 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 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 Clive Hooker declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (1), 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.

Councillor Virginia von Celsing joined the meeting at 6.33pm and confirmed that she had no interest to declare.)

(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 involved in the application but confirmed that he would consider it afresh. 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 but would step down as Chairman for the item on order to address the Committee as Ward Member.)

(Councillor Paul Bryant, Vice-Chairman, in the Chair)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01564/FULD in respect of the erection of two semi-detached dwellings within the curtilage of The Coach, in Worlds End, Beedon.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Giles Rainy Brown and Peter Logie, objectors, and Chris Roberts, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Lydia Mather introduced the report and update sheet 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, on balance, recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Councillor Paul Bryant noted that no representative from the parish council was to address the Committee on the application and asked that his disappointment in their absence, on a high profile application within the community, be recorded.

5.    Giles Rainy Brown and Peter Logie in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Objectors concerns related to the size, safety and sustainability of the proposed development and it would be excessive to shoehorn two dwellings onto a small site.

·       The need for the dwellings was not clear and not stipulated in the Council’s site allocation policies.

·       The townhouse style of the development was out of keeping and would not contribute to the character of the area, a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       The majority of houses in the area had large front gardens and were set back from the road. The proposed parking spaces at the front of the dwellings would overhang the pavement by 40cm.

·       Health and safety issues would be caused such as large delivery vehicles and residential traffic being in conflict. The pub was also used as a pick up point for a local school bus.

·       A neighbouring property, the Old Stores, would suffer a loss of light.

·       The position of the oil tank in relation to residential properties would contravene guidance.

·       It was wrong that the application did not include the pub and the Committee should ensure the sustainability of that rural enterprise.

·       If the Committee were minded to approve the application, a condition should be applied to ensure the availability of all 17 of the pub’s car parking spaces throughout construction.

6.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked what the distance would be between the windows of the Old Stores and the proposed dwellings. Mr Rainy Brown estimated it would be a couple of metres.

7.    Councillor Bryant requested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.(1)

(Councillor Clive Hooker in the Chair.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/01883/FULD in respect of the conversion of existing stables and storage barn including new linking extension to form a 3 bedroom residential dwelling at land to the rear of The Sheiling, School Lane, East Garston.

2.    The Chairman noted that Councillor Chris Tonge from East Garston Parish Council had made an application to speak within the required timescales however this had not been recorded on the update sheet for the Committee. The Committee voted to permit Councillor Tonge to speak.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Chris Tonge, Parish Council representative, Thomas Cassells-Smith, objector, Mr Davies, applicant and Mr Steven Smallman, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.    Lydia Mather introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers strongly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

5.    Councillor Tonge in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         In the Parish Council’s view the proposed development would encroach on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and contravene West Berkshire Council’s planning policies.

·         Opposition to the application was widely held in the local area. Concerns included potential overlooking and the need to maintain the land for equine use.

·         Should the Committee approve the application it could open the floodgates to similar applications.

6.    Councillor Anthony Pick asked what agricultural use the land could serve. Councillor Tonge responded that the land could be used as horse paddocks which was a valuable amenity in the area.

7.    Councillor James Cole asked for the parish council’s view regarding whether the barns were genuinely redundant, as the officer’s report noted that there was contradictory evidence. Councillor Tonge noted that the barns were in use by horses at the time of the ecological assessment in 2016.

8.    Councillor Clive Hooker enquired whether the paddocks would support the racing industry. Councillor Tonge responded that due to their small size it was unlikely that the site would be useful to the industry.

9.    Mr Cassells-Smith, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The site was outside the settlement boundary of East Garston. If the proposal was accepted by the Committee there was a risk of infilling by a further development.

·         He believed that the applicants wished to sell the land to a developer.

·         The proposal would destroy the character of the village.

·         There were safety concerns regarding the access as a door of The Sheiling would open directly onto the access road.

10.Councillor Paul Bryant enquired on what land the objectors feared a further development could be constructed. Mr Cassells-Smith indicated the position on the block plan.

11.Mr Davies and Mr Smallman, in addressing the Committee, raised the following points:

·         The application was in accordance with the Council’s policy C4.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.(2)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/01646/HOUSE in respect of the removal of a conservatory and replacement with part one part two storey extension at Oakville, Ashmore Green Road in Ashmore Green.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Bernard Clark, Parish Council representative and Mr and Mrs Mercer, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Michael Butler introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers on balance recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

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

·         The Parish Council unanimously supported the application and had been surprised the recommendation was for refusal.

·         Other extensions in the area had been approved although they had a far greater impact.

·         The planning officer at the site visit had caused confusion regarding the size of the extension.

·         While the parish council had considered the neighbour’s point of view, they had formed the view that the proposal would not be overbearing on the neighbour and there was a large gap between the houses.

5.    Councillor Clive Hooker asked what the parish council had considered to be the neighbour’s view of a large extension next door. Councillor Clark advised he saw a wall as an advantage over a fence.

6.    Mr and Mrs Mercer in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The design adhered to relevant guidelines and the plans had been amended from a previous application to reduce the ridge line.

·         Guidance in relation to overshadowing did not relate to secondary windows to the side of a property and so should not be considered. A shadow study had been completed and while there would be some loss of light, the impact would be minimal.

·         There would be a beneficial impact on overlooking as the applicants would no longer be able to see into the neighbour’s living room.

·         Of 18 similar applications in the area, none had been refused.

·         The plot could comfortably accommodate the extension and it would not have a detrimental impact on the area.

7.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked how confident the applicants were about the results of the shadow study. Mrs Mercer responded that the architect had used a modelling tool and while they accepted there would be some overshadowing it would be a minimal amount to secondary windows and none to primary windows. Mrs Mercer reported that they had observed the current shadowing on 21 September 2018 and stated that the modelled impact had been overestimated.

8.    Councillor Simpson further asked whether planning officers had been supportive or suggested any mitigation measures. Mrs Mercer advised that officers had not explained the reason for the recommendation to refuse.

9.    Councillor Pick asked what distance the extension would be from the neighbour’s property. Mr Mercer advised it would be 4.2m. Councillor Pick further asked whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.(3)