Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 15 January 2025.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2025 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 Joanne Stewart declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as she had spoken to the applicant in the past due to another facility in her ward. The Councillor reported that, as this was not a other registrable interest or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Clive Taylor declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as there was another facility in his ward and had also received a call from a supporter. The Councillor reported that, as this was not a other registrable interest or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(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).

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/01998/FULMAJ in respect of land south of School Hill, Midgham in regard to a change of use of land to a dog walking facility with associated access and parking.

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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Control Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.    The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard explained that there were concerns over the sightlines with the access to the site. Secondly, Mr Goddard noted that the traffic numbers generated by the site were not significant enough for refusal, and finally the application was not sustainable because it would encourage people to make longer journeys to get to the site then they otherwise would have.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Damien Mckinney, objector, Debra White and Francis Long, applicant/agent and Councillor Chris Read, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

5.    Mr Mckinney addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=1401

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       There were plenty of bridleways and public rights of way that could be utilised by dog walkers.

·       There were a lot of wild animals in the area which meant that it was not wise for dogs to be off their leads.

Applicant/Agent Representation

7.    Ms White and Mr Long addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=1753

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       There would be a high wired fence around the site.

·       One person could bring up to six dogs.

·       There were around 500 registered users.

·       The nearest site to the area was eight miles away.

·       There were three car parking spaces and three spaces within a waiting area.

Ward Member Representation

9.    Councillor Chris Read addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=2294

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10. Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

• Horse racing facilities were considered rural in nature and could not be placed in urban centres, whereas a dog walking site could be placed in urban centres and so discourage unnecessary travel.
• The surrounding area had a low population with many public rights of way that could be used.
• Electric Vehicles (EVs) had not come with guidance on sustainable travel, however it could be viewed that they still needed to be charged, therefore they were not perfectly sustainable.
• The access road was set at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/02147/FUL in respect of a replacement of a fire damaged bungalow at Strawberry Farm, Aldermaston.

2.    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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.    The Chairman asked Mr Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard explained that as it was an existing access the highways department had no objections to the application.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Steve Cottrell, agent and Councillor Dominic Boeck, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

Mr Cottrell addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=6004

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       After the fire, the fire brigade’s advice was to demolish the property for safety reasons.

Ward Member Representation

6.    Councillor Boeck addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=6390

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.    Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Irrespective of the timeline planning officers considered the property to be abandoned.

·       The relevant planning policy considered a property abandoned if there was no property there at the time of application.

·       There was an existing appeal that could be affected by the outcome of this application. This was at Brimpton Common.

·       Evacuation numbers in the DEPZ were assessed every year with all changes considered.

Debate

9.    Councillor Pemberton opened the debate by expressing he was uncomfortable with the fact a house could burn down in the DEPZ without the right to rebuild. The Councillor also sympathised with the economic situation of the appellant.

10. Councillor Somner shared Councillor Pemberton’s concerns and pointed out that the property had not burnt down until mid-way through the legal process of the purchase, which was why the Councillor wanted to have a timeline of events. The Councillor highlighted that residents in similar properties would become concerned that they could not rebuild their homes in similar circumstances.

11. Councillor Poole implored the Committee to judge the application on its own merits and expressed discontent over the situation. The Councillor called for the need for ‘absolutes’ to make a formal decision in this case.

12. Councillor Kander was concerned by the fact that the house occupation had been removed from the AWE emergency plan list and explained that numbers involved in the resident population were uncertain.

13. Councillor Taylor was keen to hear people’s ideas on the matter expressing it was not a straightforward case.

14. Councillor Pemberton proposed to refer the decision to the District Planning Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.