Issue - meetings

(The Chairman declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01519/FUL in respect of Land West of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water, Enborne. Approval was sought for: 1. Construction of stabling and hard standing; 2. Change of use from agricultural to a mixed agricultural/equestrian use; 3. Soft landscaping scheme.

2.     Miss Cheyanne Kirby, 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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended drainage information to delegate to the Service Director, Development and Regulation to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed below OR, in the event that satisfactory additional information on drainage is not provided within 3 months of the date of this meeting (or such longer period as to be agreed in writing by the Development control Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee) to refuse the application for the following reason:

“The application is not accompanied by sufficient information to determine that drainage and flood risk on the site can be addressed through implementation of an adequate strategy of onsite drainage measures. Therefore the application fails to meet with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2026, which requires development to be safe and not increase flood risk elsewhere and to manage surface water in a sustainable manner through the implementation of SuDS, and the recommendations of the West Berkshire Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Supplementary Planning Document (2018).”

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the application had been refused previously on Highways grounds, and that there was concern over vehicle speeds on the road. However, as the sight lines on the road were very good, there were no Highways concerns on this occasion.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Sam Eachus, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. The Chairman noted that a representative of the Parish Council had wanted to address the committee on this application, but had missed the notification deadline. Also, he also noted that Ward Member, Councillor James Cole, was unable to attend the meeting.

Agent Representation

5.     Mr Sam Eachus in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Eachus was present on behalf of the applicant, Mr David Wood.

·         In regards to grazing needs, the guidelines were for horses, not for ponies, and were only guidelines. The size and health of the horse were factors, and the two ponies could get their nutritional needs on the land. Mr Eachus believed

·         In regards to highways, Mr Eachus noted the lack of objections, and that sightlines were very good. The Highway Code does  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22