Agenda and minutes
PDF 190 KBVenue: Calcot Centre, Highview (off Royal Avenue), Calcot. View directions
Contact: Stephen Chard - Tel: (01635) 519462 - Email: schard@westberks.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 29 February 2012. Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members. Minutes: Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3), but reported that, as her interest could be construed as prejudicial, she would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter, apart from speaking as Ward Member. |
|||||||||
|
Schedule of Planning Applications (Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications.) |
|||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Agenda Item 4(1) concerning Planning Application 11/01345/FULMAJ in respect of the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 14 residential dwellings was deferred as the application was found to be invalid. The item was therefore not discussed and would be rescheduled once a new valid application had been submitted. |
|||||||||
|
Application Nos. 11/02395/HOUSE & 11/02396/LBC2 - Bryar Cottage, North Street, Theale
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Applications 11/02395/HOUSE and 11/02396/LBC2 in respect of a new detached garage and office to the rear alongside house. Councillor Graham Pask confirmed that a single debate would be held for both applications, but there would be a separate decision made in respect to each application. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Barry Morris, Parish Council representative, Mr Jake Brown, [name restricted], objectors, and Mr Simon Hynes and Ms Lisa Witham, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr Morris in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · On considering the most recently refused planning application, the Parish Council had considered it to be inappropriately bulky and were therefore opposed to that application. Since that time the applicants had consulted all interested parties, including the Parish, and this was felt to be a far more acceptable proposal which would have little impact on the street scene. · Only one letter of objection had been received from within the parish. This was from the tenant of a neighbouring property (Sheldon) who was concerned with the loss of light to their property. However, the Parish felt this issue had been adequately covered by Planning in the report. · A Parish Council representative had attended the site visit and did not have any concerns. The Parish Council were in support of the application. Members noted that one of the objectors, Mr Jake Brown, was a West Berkshire Council Planning Officer, however, his attendance was only in the capacity of an objector. The Chairman acknowledged that the Members of the Committee all knew Mr Brown in his professional capacity. [name restricted] in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · She was speaking on behalf of the objectors to both planning applications. They were of the view that the garage and the office building would inappropriately close the existing gap between buildings. The gap needed to be retained as it contributed to the street scene and provided a suitable setting for the listed building. · The proposal would block views from her home (Sheldon) and would have an urbanising impact on the area. · The application would bring no benefits to the listed building and this was necessary in order to combat negative impacts. · The half-hip aspect of the design, which would face the road, would be an unsympathetic feature. · The proposal would significantly limit the amount of daylight on the Sheldon property as it would have an overbearing impact, most particularly on the well used kitchen and lounge. In addition, the kitchen window would overlook the proposed garage. Although the application had been improved, the main bulk of the outbuildings would still be visible. · If approved, the garage would be only one metre from the boundary fence. · The impact on the garden area was also an important consideration. Much of the garden was already overlooked and only the area outside the kitchen had any privacy. However, this would be lost by the height and close proximity of ... view the full minutes text for item 65.(2) |
|||||||||
|
Application No. & Parish: 11/02739/HOUSE - The Chestnuts, Flowers Hill, Pangbourne
Additional documents:
Minutes: (Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors was a close friend. As her interest could be construed as prejudicial she left the meeting at 7.25pm and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter, apart from speaking as Ward Member). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 11/02739/HOUSE in respect of two front elevation dormers, entrance door porch, single storey rear bay window extension and construction of front boundary wall with entrance gates. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs E White, Parish Council representative, and Mr Maurus Rimmer and Mr J D Dutson, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application. Mrs White in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · The Parish Council had no objections regarding the alterations to the main house, however, they were opposed to the proposed wall. · The current wall was deemed acceptable, however, the proposed wall was in contrast to the Pangbourne Village Design Statement and other walls on Flowers Hill. · The Parish Council would have had no objections had the proposed wall been lower, or preferably railings and landscaping. Councillor Bedwell asked Mrs White if the Parish would have raised an objection to a hedgerow rather than the wall and Mrs White confirmed that there would have been no objection to this. Mrs White confirmed that no discussions had taken place between the Parish Council and the applicant regarding the height of the wall. Councillor Law noted that there were similar walls to that proposed within the Village Design Statement such as on Tidmarsh Hill however, not on Flowers Hill itself. Mr Rimmer in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · Mr Rimmer had lived in the property opposite The Chestnuts for 29 years. He had no problem with the proposed extension to the house, however, was opposed to the garden wall. · He understood that the applicant was aiming to reduce the sound and sight of the passing road, however, the wall proposed would hinder the scene of Flowers Hill. It was felt that Flowers Hill could not be compared to Tidmarsh Hill. · Railings rather than a brick wall would be much more acceptable. Mr Dutson in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · 36 years ago Flowers Hill had been an old country lane and over the years the surface had deteriorated. The community had raised £3k to have the surface tarmaced. · He had planted daffodils to the left hand side of Flowers Hill with the aim of retaining the character of the area. It was felt that railings and a hedge like that used opposite The Chestnuts would be much more suitable and in-keeping. · Properties opposite The Chestnuts were open fronted. The understanding was that they would stay open fronted. · Residents of the property next door to The Chestnuts were concerned that if planning permission was granted, in the future the brick wall might be extended. · It was agreed that ... view the full minutes text for item 65.(3) |
|||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: (Councillor Pamela Bale returned to the meeting at 7.50pm). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 11/02602/FULD in respect of the erection of a detached house on plot 1. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Nicola Taplin, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Ms Taplin in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · She was the applicant’s planning consultant. · The applicant had recently purchased the property and had identified modifications they wished to make to the approved planning permission for the erection of three detached houses. Two of these had been built and the modifications therefore related to the one house that remained to be built (plot 1). Prior to the applicant purchasing the property, an application had been dismissed for a larger house on this plot. · The applicant had taken on board the comments of the Planning Inspector in formulating this planning application, in particular its design. · A table of dimensions had been provided within the report to help Members assess the differences between the extant planning permission, the refused application and the one being proposed. · Ms Taplin then sought to address some of the concerns that had been raised with the application: · The closer distance between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring property (Willowdene) - the proposed property would be 1.8m from the boundary of Willowdene. · Possible overlooking from a balcony on the rear elevation – the way that this balcony would be used would mean that any overlooking would be similar to that from a window. In addition, some screening would be provided by a wall. Officers were supportive of what was being proposed in this regard. · A modest increase in height of the proposed property – it was felt that the design would achieve the transitional effect required by the Planning Inspector. Again, Officers were supportive of what was being proposed in this regard. · Lack of garage – there would be provision for necessary car parking which was in line with Council guidelines. · The applicant had accepted the removal of permitted development rights. · The development would not have a negative impact on the character of the area, which was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). · The Officer’s report had concluded that the proposal would be sympathetic, in keeping with the character of the area and an improvement on the extant consent. Councillor Richard Crumly questioned the absence of a garage from the application and asked whether other homes in Bethesda Street had a garage. Ms Taplin confirmed that other properties did have a garage, but following consideration by the applicant of the balance between having a garage or increased living space, they opted for additional living space. She added that there were no plans for a garage and it was the intention to park at the front of the house. Councillor Alan Law, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points: · He firstly advised that the Parish Council had not addressed the Committee as they missed the deadline ... view the full minutes text for item 65.(4) |
|||||||||
|
Appeal Decisions relating to Eastern Area Planning Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area Planning Committee. Additional documents:
Minutes: Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area. |
|||||||||
|
Special Meeting and Site Visits Minutes: It was confirmed that the Special Eastern Area Planning Committee on 4 April 2012 to consider the IKEA planning application would be held at Theale Green School and would commence at the usual time of 6.30pm. An offer was made to those Members who were unable to attend the briefing meeting to contact Paul Goddard if they required further information. A date of 4 April 2012 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary. These would relate to the next scheduled Committee meeting being held on 11 April 2012. |