Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 26 April and 25 May 2023.

As the Chairman (Councillor Alan Macro) and the Vice-Chairman Councillor Richard Somner had given their apologies for this meeting, Councillor Justin Pemberton proposed that Councillor Clive Taylor act as Chairman for the duration of the meeting and this was seconded by Councillor Paul Kander. This was put to vote and the motion was carried.

Councillor Clive Taylor in the Chair for the duration of the meeting.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 26 April 2023 and 25 May 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Vicky Poole declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she knew the applicant, Nigel Hopes, as a work colleague and from a network group, but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

All Councillors declared that they had received a letter from the objectors lobbying the Committee on Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(2).

(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).

Item starts at 6 minutes and 27 seconds into the recording.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/00376/FULMAJ, in respect of a full application for the change of use of the site to a flexible events venue, [120 guests maximum] including the provision of overnight accommodation. The barn/site was to be used for no more than 28 weddings/major events per annum, on Saturdays only at Awberry Farm Beenham.

2.    Mr Michael Butler 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 Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.    Mr Paul Goddard explained to the Committee the process of estimating potential traffic movements to and from the site. Mr Goddard expressed that through the use of the Trics database, this would evaluate similar sites and provide the potential traffic flow for Awberry Farm. The Highways Department noted that this site would generate less traffic than the other potential uses within the use class (Class E). The estimate for the site was around 140 vehicle movements a day for 28 days within the year. Mr Goddard added that it would be difficult to reject the proposal on the grounds of poor sightlines due to the small number of vehicle movements.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Dieter Hinke, Beenham Parish Council representative, Mr Sarah Leijten, objector, Mr Nigel Toon, supporter, Mr Nigel Hopes, applicant and Councillor Dominic Boeck, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     Mr Hinke in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Although there was a need to encourage the growth of the rural economy, this should not come at the cost of local harmony. The increased noise, traffic and environmental impact of the venue would affect  this.

·         The increased traffic could be dangerous for horse riders that used the local roads.

·         There were cottages as little as 150 metres from the venue, which would be affected by the noise and residents might have to give up sitting in the garden.

·         The report stated that the site would not be sustainable.

·         There was an objection from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Officer, which had been ignored by the Planning Officer.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.     The Committee heard that the local school held between two and three events a year.

Objector Representation

7.     Ms Leijten in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Council had made promises to work together with residents to deliver what was best for the community and to approve this application would oppose this.

·         The economic benefits of the venue were speculative and exaggerated. The economic development statement on the increase in marriages neglected the fact that this was due to COVID-19.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.(1)

Item starts at 2 hours and 8 seconds into the recording.

44. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/01014/LBC in respect of retention of unauthorised works, retrospective application for full restoration and conversion of the barn.  Addition of internal insulation and air cooling, and a new porch to the west elevation to provide the key reception area for a flexible events venue at Awberry Farm, Beenham.

45.Mr Butler 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 Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant listed building consent, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

46.Anything from Paul Goddard?

47.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter McEwan, Beenham Parish Council representative, Mr David Hancock, objector, Mr Nigel Toon, supporter, and Mr Nigel Hopes, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

48.  Mr McEwan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The site had three separate renovations over the years where plans were not detailed properly.

·         That a condition should be put into place to ask for the previous plans to be handed over to West Berkshire Council.

·         That there would be one small door for the site users to enter through that required going up and down steps, meaning that there was no provision for disabled access to the site.

·         That the application should be conditioned for a revaluation for the entrance porch. 

Member Questions to the Parish Council

49.  Mr McEwan stated that the double door system was set up as mitigation for the noise and argued that there were no details in the report about access and that it would not work effectively.

50.  Mr McEwan expressed that someone should have the plans for the previous developments and could provide the drawings.

Objector Representation

51.  Mr Hancock in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That the Committee could not tell what the future intentions of the site might be and that this could be used for further development down the line.

·         Although there had been changes to the original application these changes were not enough.

·         The site was at 35 decibels during testing, so with the addition of music it would surely bring the noise over the sound limit, therefore the sound target would be impossible to achieve.

·         There were 60 residential properties nearby and all of these would be affected.

·         It would be a risk to approve the retrospective planning application.

Member Questions to the Objector

52.  Mr Hancock expressed that he was unsure what impact the noise suppression would have at the site.

Supporter Representation

53.  Mr Toon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The renovations would not compromise the historic structure of the barn.

·         There would be no material difference compared to the existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.(2)

Item starts at 3 hours and 8 minutes into the recording.

Continuation of meeting

45.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 3, paragraph 10.8, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 22.30, and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(3) and Agenda Item 4(4).

46.  The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 22/02945/REG4 in respect of Francis Baily Primary School, Skillman Drive, Thatcham, West Berkshire, RG19 4GG in respect of a Proposed phased development which involves erection of a new single storey teaching block in a new location followed by the demolition of the existing single storey teaching block.

47.  Mr Patrick Haran 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 Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

48.  Mr Goddard explained that the application would result in an extra 70 square metres of school building, however this would not lead to an increase in traffic.

49.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Simon Pike, Thatcham Town Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

50.  Mr Pike in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The classrooms were desperately needed; however, the application was not in keeping with Thatcham Town Council’s environmental policy.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

51.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

52.  The Committee heard that the extra square footage added by the application was to improve the existing facilities and not to accommodate more students.

Debate

53.  Councillor Cottam opened the debate by stating that the funding might not be available for the building to be environmentally friendly, butthat this would see an increase in efficiency and quality for the school.

54.  Councillor Pemberton argued that the environmental impact of the building would not be down to the applicant, but the lack of funding. The Councillor explained that the existing building was not fit for purpose and the school needed improvement.

55.  Councillor Cottam proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Langford.

56.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cottam, seconded by Councillor Langford, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. Commencement of development: The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.(3)

45.  The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 22/02533/REG4 in respect of Francis Baily Primary School, Skillman Drive, Thatcham, West Berkshire, RG19 4GG in respect of the erection of 3 temporary teaching blocks and 3 temporary toilet blocks.

46.  Mr Haran 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 Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

47.  Mr Goddard had no comments on the application.

Member Questions to Officers

48.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Debate

49.  Councillor Cottam proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

50.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cottam, seconded by Councillor Pemberton, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.    Time Limit: The temporary classrooms and toilets hereby permitted shall be located on the site for a maximum period of 30 weeks from their installation after which time the use shall be discontinued and the temporary classrooms and toilets shall be removed from site. The applicant shall notify the Local Planning Authority in writing within two weeks of the installation of the temporary classrooms and toilets.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the permission.

2.    Approved plans: the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:

DRWG 0589-PL-101 REVA Site Location Plan & Existing Block Plan recd 17.11.2022

DRWG 0589-PL-103 REVA Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations recd 17.11.2022

DRWG 0589-PL-104 Proposed Toilet Plans & Elevations recd 17.11.2022

DRWG 0589-PL-102 REVB Proposed Block Plan recd 03.02.2023

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3.    Deliveries: No deliveries to the site in pursuance of the development hereby approved shall take place at peak times on the highway network (between 0800-0900 and 1700- 1800) or at the start/end of the school day if staff and pupils will be on-site.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of pupils and staff and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS 14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006- 2026) and Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.(4)