Issue - meetings

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 25/01081/FUL in respect of demolition of industrial units and pigsty and construction of 4 no. residential dwellings and parking provision, buildings and land to rear of Londis Stores, High Street, Church Lane, Chieveley, Newbury. 

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 and legal agreement outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application.

·       It was confirmed that no highways issues had been raised in previous applications, and no highway reasons for refusal had been considered by the Planning Inspector. The proposal would generate traffic from the four dwellings, however the previous commercial use would also have generated a level of traffic generation, and officers did not expect a noticeable increase in traffic to and from the site. The proposal was in line with car parking standards, and there was provision for cycle storage and electric vehicle charging points. Refuse vehicles could reach into the site, however, refuse collection was expected to take place as per the existing dwellings adjacent to the site. The local highway authority had no objection to the proposal, as per the previous proposal. 

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Cowan, Parish Council representative, Mr Neil Courtney, objector, Mr David Lee, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.      Mr Cowan addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Parish Council

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

·       The Parish Council Representative had noted the conditions for the scheduling of materials in architecture details. However, he highlighted that the previously application had been refused 18 months ago and he felt that more detail should have been included in the proposal regarding materials that would be appropriate on the site. 

·       The use of rendered walls and slate roofing was considered to be out of character with the Conservation Area. and this could have been addressed before reaching the committee.

Objector Representation

7.      Mr Courtney addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The number of parking spaces was considered to be insufficient at two per household. If the owners had adult children, then they would likely need to park on the High Street or find parking elsewhere. 

Applicant/Agent Representation

9.      Mr Lee addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

10.   Members asked questions of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3