Issue - meetings

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/00657/FUL in respect of Erection of single dwelling, double garage and associated works, Land at Tudor Avenue Chieveley Newbury RG20 8RW.

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 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, Mr Michael Parker and Mr Alan Alewood, objectors, Mr Andy Callow and Mr Robert James, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4.      Mr Parker and Mr Alewood addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

·       Local residents had been provided with very little notice of the of the recommendation to approve the application.

·       They felt as though officers’ recommendation was undemocratic and contravened the Council’s own policies.

·       They had presented photos demonstrating the area’s propensity to flood.

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The site had previously been designated as agricultural land and was denoted as such in the Land Registry.

·       The flooding near the site was mainly surface water, but was also through water that came up through Thames Water’s sewer network when it could not cope with the rainfall.

·       The development site sat on higher ground and could contribute to increased flooding on lower ground, which already flooded. The pumping station would need to be improved to prevent flooding when there  was excess rainwater.

·       The development would add to the burden on the pumping station, which was unable to cope with the current demand.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.      Mr Callow and Mr James addressed the Committee. The representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

7.      The main items highlighted by the applicant were as follows:

·       The development was under Callow Construction, but was owned by the applicant and his wife, with a view to building a family home.

·       The applicant had contacted all neighbours in the near vicinity to allay any concerns prior to and during the application.

·       The application and the Council’s consultants had answered all objections raised by neighbours.

·       The applicant was sympathetic to the concerns raised by the objectors, but concerns raised were not felt to be relevant to the application as shown by the surface and foul water strategies commissioned by the applicant.

·       A lack of maintenance may have contributed to the flooding issues.

·       As owners of the Tudor Avenue access road, which would not be adopted by West Berkshire Council, the applicant would investigate the issues moving forward and would look into a communal laydown area for bin collection.

·       Regarding nutrient neutrality concerns, the applicant had agreed with Officers the amount and the location of the offsite mitigation which would be secured with a Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3