Issue - meetings

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/00491/FUL in respect of the demolition of the existing structurally compromised cottage and provision of a replacement cottage, with provision for access and related landscaping at Greengates, Front Street, East Garston.

2.    Ms Cheyanne Kirby 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 recommended that the Development Manager 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, Deana Carpenter, Parish Council representative, Lindsey Mason, objector, Howard Porter, applicant/agent, and Councillor Hooker, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.    Ms Carpenter addressed the Committee, her full representation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhQEXtlzgY

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         The setting back of the cottage would change the aesthetic of the village and its current position encouraged cars to slow down.

·         Objectors would withdraw their concerns if the access route was in the same position as the temporary route.

Objector Representation

6.    Ms Mason addressed the Committee, her full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=1616

Member Questions to the Objector

7.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         Multiple windows would overlook Ms Mason’s property and infringe on her privacy.

·         The conditions put on the kerb and the hedge would be difficult to enforce long term.

Applicant/Agent Representation

8.    Mr Porter addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=2130

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

9.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         The appeal for the previous application was still in process.

·         The existing access could be improved, and the existing wall needed to be protected, which was why the applicant opted for the left-hand access.

·         Most tiles on the roof were not reusable.

Ward Member Representation

10.Councillor Hooker addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=2636

Member Questions to the Ward Member

11.Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

·         The new application added an additional 2.5 metres to the property, towards the access.

Member Questions to Officers

12.Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         If the hedge was to be conditioned, enforcement notices could be actioned if it was overgrown and then West Berkshire Council (The Council) could cut it to an appropriate size.

·         The public benefit of the application outweighed the potential low-level harm outlined by the Conservation Officer.

·         Paragraph 6.13 of the report aimed to be a best possible case and the condition would allow the Council to control the type of bricks used.

·         Highways were satisfied with the proposed access as it improved an existing access.

Debate

13.Councillor Hooker opened the debate by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3