Issue - meetings

Councillor Howard Woolaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) as it related to his ward.

Item starts at 8 minutes and 7 seconds into the recording.

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/00642/FUL in respect of retrospective a two new storage bays utilising existing containers. To be used to house machinery and provide weatherproof cover for existing items within the yard. Martin Collins Enterprises Ltd, Cuckoo Copse, Lambourn Woodlands, Hungerford,

2.      Mr 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 in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Chris Harris Lambourn Parish Council representative, Bridget Jones, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.      Chris Harris had informed that the Parish Council had submitted a request for him to speak, the officers had no record of such request but as Members could recall at the site visit that the Parish Council had said they would be speaking, the Committee voted and resolved to allow Chis Harris to speak.

In addressing the Committee Chis Harris raised the following points:

·       It was yet another retrospective planning application and he highlighted the sites planning history.

·       The Parish Council objected the application.

·       The Membury business area had a history of anti-social behaviour.

·       The height of the construction was too high and impacted the local amenities.

·       If a planning application had been submitted, then the issues could have been resolved via consultation.

·       The structures were temporary and thus could be moved to a more suitable location on the site.

Objector Representation

5.      Bridget Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Since she moved into the area in 2012 there had been many changes that had impacted on the quality of live for residents.  Local residents tried to discuss any issues with businesses and Mr Collins had previously been responsive.  This had not happened with this development.

·       The construction could be seen from the driveway.  It was a 26 foot structure that dominated the site.

·       There was a history in the area of retrospective planning applications being accepted.

·       Her view would be interrupted for up to 6 months of the year and local trees in the area were dying, she wanted samples to see if this was due to water runoff from the construction.

·        The report said the containers were already on site, but they were in a different location.

·       There seemed to be one rule for businesses and another for residents when it came to planning matters.

·       She did not object to the construction but to its location and the impact of water drainage was having on local trees and flooding the front of her property.

Member Questions to the Objector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7