Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she was a Local Ward Member. 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(3)) concerning Planning Application 20/02062/COMIND in respect of St Gabriels Farm, The Ridge, Cold Ash, Thatcham.

2.     Mrs Sian Cutts, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to refuse planning permission, for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that Highways has no objection to the proposed layout.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Bernard Clark, Cold Ash Parish Council, Mr James Iles, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

1.     Mr Bernard Clark, Cold Ash Parish Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Clark agreed with the points raised by Mrs Cutts.

·         Mr Clark underlined the importance of the site, noting that it was highly significant to members of the local community.

·         Mr Clark stated that the local community considered the expansion of residential curtilage as a Trojan horse towards further development, and that it would seriously undermine the NDP.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

2.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Agent Representation

3.     Mr James Iles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Iles represented the planning agent, who appealed to the Planning Inspector over the refusal of the Class Q Prior Approval application, and the non-determination of the linked full application. Mr Iles noted that the officer recommendation for the initial applications were to approve, but was refused by the decision of the Committee. The decision on the full application was subsequently deferred. The Committee is being asked to instruct the Planning Inspector on the decision that would have been taken were it considered.

·         The application related to limited works to enhance the Class Q Residential Scheme, including extending the residential curtilages, improved landscaping and parking arrangements, and as well as demolishing the barn and slurry pits.

·         The application will improve biodiversity with the creation of a meadow and ponds, and visual improvements to the site by the removal by the redundant barn and paddock.

·         The purpose of the parallel application is a number of tangible benefits to improve the Class Q Residential Scheme, with no technical objections raised by any statutory consultees, and no adverse impacts on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, flood risks, or highways concerns.

·         The officer’s report recommends that the application should be refused due to the fate of the linked application. However, the original recommendation was to approve.

·         Mr Iles requested that the members acknowledge that the application is refused due to the link with the application, with no other grounds for refusal.

Member Questions to the Agent

4.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

5.     Councillor Hilary Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Cole stated that as the previous application for development had been refused, there was no need for the subsequent application to be approved.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

6.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

7.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked for clarification that this was the second application, which the Committee opted not to consider due to prior refusal. Mrs Cutts clarified that it was.

8.     Councillor Hilary Cole asked whether weight could be given to the Cold Ash Neighbourhood Development Plan. Mr Till responded that it would be given due weight in considerations of planning applications.

Debate

9.     Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by thanking Mrs Cutts and the applicant for making clear that the Committee has no other logical option but to accept the officer recommendation. Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the prior application was refused as it was not suitable, and would set a precedent for further development. He expressed a willingness to propose.

10.  Councillor Abbs noted that it had been clarified that he has no logical option but to accept officer recommendation, and that he did not see a need to add the language suggested by Mr Iles. He expressed an intention to second.

11.  Councillor Tony Vickers proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Adrian Abbs.

12.  Mr Till noted that the resolution is not a determination of the planning application, as it has now been appealed, but it would be passed to the Planning Inspector as advice on what the Committee’s determination would have been were it in a position to determine.

13.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Tony Vickers, seconded by Councillor Abbs to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons