Issue - meetings

(Councillors Hilary Cole and Claire Rowles declared that they had been lobbied on this item.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/01441/HOUSE in respect of the proposed demolition of garden store, external alterations to the Eastern Pavilion including the provision of roof lights (retrospective), erection of a new Western Pavilion to provide home office facilities at ground level, guest accommodation at first floor and a basement level garage at Hayward Green Farm, West Woodhay, Newbury, Berkshire.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Harry Henderson, Parish Meeting representative, Mr Ewan Christian and Mr John Handy, objectors, and Mr Steven Sensecall, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Matthew Shepherd 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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended that the Committee grant planning permission.

4.     Paul Goddard advised that there were no highways issues.

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

·           The Code of Planning stated that planning effected people’s lives and that the process should be transparent to avoid suspicion of impropriety. The Parish Meeting had submitted 27 complaints relating to maladministration of the application by officers.

·           The applicant had refused to engage with the local community.

·           The planning officer had not been impartial in his assessment of the validity of the Section 106 agreement made in 2005.

·           Parish Meeting representatives had been excluded from a site meeting with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Board.

·           The hydrology report excluded the main issues impacting the site.

·           The applicant had no regard for the planning process or the community.

·           The planning officer had not been impartial.

·           The property would be visible from a footpath in the AONB.

6.     Councillor Phil Barnett asked if it was correct that the community had been ostracised from all consultation; Mr Henderson advised that he felt that was the case.

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked what was on the site previously. Mr Henderson advised that an agriculturally tied building had been built on the site which was later removed. The current property was over seven times the footprint.

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Mr Henderson to expand on his complaint regarding officers’ conduct. Sharon Armour stated that details of complaints regarding officers were not relevant to the Committee and Members should focus on planning merits.

9.     Mr Christian and Mr Handy in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           No effort had been made by the applicant to engage with the local community so the Committee should not look favourable on the application.

·           The application if approved would lead to overdevelopment of the site with a seven-fold increase in floor area which was excessive.

·           The planning authority had failed to consult the AONB Board properly and Councillors had deferred the application in order to ensure this took place.

·           The Parish Meeting were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11