To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Team  This meeting will be streamed live here: https://www.westberks.gov.uk/easternareaplanninglive

Media

Items
No. Item

12.

Minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 13 July 2022.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2022 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

·         For Item 4(2), all references to Lucy Chopping should be replaced with Lucy Jones.

 

13.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Alan Macro declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

14.

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.)

14.(1)

Application No. & Parish: 22/00146/RESMAJ Lakeside, The Green, Theale pdf icon PDF 385 KB

Proposal:

Section 73 application for variation of (condition 2) to allow for 9 dwellings, condition 3 (vary the phasing plan), condition 4 (materials), condition 9 (levels), condition 11 (landscaping), condition 14 (vehicle parking & turning) following grant of planning permission 20/00663/RESMAJ - Approval of reserved matters application for phase 1 (of the development, which is for 7 dwellings located off St Ives Close, details include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following Outline Permission Allowed on Appeal 15/02842/OUTMAJ (APP/W0340/W/16/3159722) - Outline application for Residential development of up to 325 houses and apartments (including 70 extra-care units) with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping. All matters reserved.

Location:

Lakeside, The Green, Theale

Applicant:

Ridgepoint Homes

 

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Service Director of Development & Regulation to Grant Planning Permission

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he knew some of the objectors and he also lived around 100m from the site. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00146/RESMAJ in respect of a Section 73 application for variation of condition 2 (to allow for 9 dwellings), condition 3 (vary the phasing plan), condition 4 (materials), condition 9 (levels), condition 11 (landscaping), condition 14 (vehicle parking & turning), following grant of planning permission 20/00663/RESMAJ - Approval of reserved matters application for phase 1 (of the development, which was for 7 dwellings located off St Ives Close, details include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following Outline Permission Allowed on Appeal 15/02842/OUTMAJ (APP/W0340/W/16/ 3159722) – Outline application for Residential development of up to 325 houses and apartments (including 70 extra-care units) with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping. All matters reserved.

Mr Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the item which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Zoe Fenwick, Theale Parish Council representative, and Ms Sylvia Fowler, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

Ms Fenwick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Theale Parish Council had objections to raising the number of houses from seven to nine, on the basis that it would change the character of the existing St Ives Close development – the 11 existing dwellings were mostly bungalows and the new dwellings would effectively be three storey houses.

·         Residents in St Ives Close and Volunteer Road would be overlooked.

·         There would be a 25-30% increase in traffic. St Ives Close was a small road with limited parking and there were already concerns about refuse vehicles being able to access the site adequately. Issues experienced by residents and refuse / utility vehicles would be exacerbated by the increased traffic.

·         The Parish Council had concerns about drainage and impacts on the environment as a result of removal of trees, bushes and vegetation required to deliver the required changes to the road layout.

·         The site was significantly higher than St Ives Road and the Parish Council was concerned about the impact of works to address this.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

There were no questions of clarification for the Parish Council.

Objector Representation

Ms Fowler in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She lived in a property on Volunteer Road that backed onto the site.

·         Under the approved plan for seven houses, there would be only one house adjacent to her property, which would be side-on with no facing windows and a large garden. However, under the new application for nine houses, there would be two properties backing onto her property with windows overlooking her garden and much  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(1)

14.(2)

Application No. & Parish: 21/02450/REG4 Basildon Church of England Primary School, School Lane, Upper Basildon pdf icon PDF 228 KB

Proposal:

Redevelopment of land of the school grounds including new play equipment with fencing and planting.

Location:

Basildon Church Of England Primary School, School Lane, Upper Basildon, Reading, West Berkshire, RG8 8PD

Applicant:

Basildon Church Of England Primary School

 

Recommendation:

Delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to grant conditional planning permission.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/02450/REG4 in respect of redevelopment of the school grounds including new play equipment and fencing.

Mr Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the item which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Geoffrey Couchman, Basidon Parish Council representative, Ms Ruth Cane, objector, and Ms Pam Slingsby, Ms Natasha Lee and Reverend Grant Fensome, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

Mr Couchman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Basildon Parish Council objected to the proposal on environmental grounds.

·         The proposal would destroy an established wilding area with mature vegetation.

·         The proposal also cut across the West Berkshire Environmental Strategy’s vision to improve natural habitats and wilding areas.

·         Existing vegetation would be removed and replaced with rubberised, safe play areas. This relied on petro-chemical manufacturing, which again had environmental issues.

·         There were a number of trees on site. Two would be kept, but two or three of the less mature sycamores would be removed.

·         It was strange to replace a natural environment (albeit neglected) by something that detracted from the environmental issues.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

Members asked if there was a planning policy issue with the proposal. It was noted that landowners could replace ponds, wildlife areas, trees that were not protected, etc with something else under planning rules (i.e. with no planning application required per se). It was noted that any building project would utilise building materials that had an environmental / carbon impact, but planning law did not allow such projects to be refused on environmental grounds. Members asked if the parish council could identify any planning policy grounds to refuse the application.

Mr Couchman indicated that it was not considered contrary to planning policy, but it was contrary to the adopted Environment Strategy. He quote from the strategy as follows: ‘Our environmental assets will have been protected for future generations’. He noted that the school’s freehold was within the Council’s ownership. He also noted that there was a need to build houses, but this was a separate issue.

Objectors Representations

Ms Ruth Cane in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposed development would have adverse environmental impacts.

·         Objectors were supportive of the Council’s Environment Strategy, which was considered to be very forward looking and highlighted the need to engage all communities to take action to protect the environment. The Strategy also made a commitment to encourage children to be closer to nature and to improve the natural environment.

·         Other aspects of the strategy that were considered important included:

o   Protecting the environment

o   Understanding the role of local woodland trees (the proposal would result in the loss of sycamore trees)

o   Improving diversity and wildlife

o   Protecting the environment for future generations

o   Working with residents and communities to deliver positive change

·         The school referred to the proposed development as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(2)

14.(3)

Application No. & Parish: 22/00719/HOUSE Abbey Gardens, Woolhampton pdf icon PDF 276 KB

Proposal:

Rear orangery.

Location:

49 Abbey Gardens, Woolhampton, Reading, RG7 5TZ

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs G Bradley

 

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Service Director of Development and Regulation to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00719/HOUSE in respect of a rear orangery.

Miss Donna Toms (Planning Officer) introduced the item which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Jessica Raphael, objector, and Mr Gordon Bradley and Mr Brian Davies, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

Ms Raphael in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She confirmed that she was the owner / occupier of 48 Abbey Gardens.

·         She also spoke for Mr David Mayer, the owner / occupier of 50 Abbey Gardens and Mr Nicolas Lyon, the owner / occupier of 47 Abbey Gardens.

·         A solid brick wall, twice the height of the existing fence would cause an extra 50% loss of light and overshadowing, with substantial harm due to reduced light entering her living room.

·         A professional light survey should be commissioned.

·         It was proposed that the rear boundary height would be reduced by at least two feet at the next hedge cutting. The parasol, which was removed prior to the site visit, was situated where the extension would be built and was clearly visible from the bridleway, meadow, recreation ground and highway at the side, as would the proposed orangery.

·         The report mentioned three existing rear extensions, but objectors were only aware of one at number 45, and the planning consent for that was based on no there being no dwelling to the north, so there would be no issue with loss of light and foreshadowing. Also, number 45 was set back from its neighbour. She asked why the same criteria did not apply to this application.

·         It was not clear how a development of twice the existing fence height could be considered ‘minimal’ and how light would only be reduced for ‘a short period of the day’. It was suggested that light would be reduced all morning.

·         It was not clear how this extension made a positive contribution to its immediate neighbours and the rest of West Berkshire – the only party that would benefit would be the applicant.

·         The relevance of the 45 degree rule had been dismissed by the case officer and clarification was sought that this was correct.

·         The management company had stated that they were neutral. However, Mr Steve Bailey was a director of the management company and spoke for himself. It was asked if he had a personal interest, since his extension was the basis for this proposal.

·         Ms Raphael felt that this application should be rejected.

·         Mr David Mayer had provided additional points as follows:

o   The proposed orangery would be an overly dominant structure, with the brick front and side elevation of 3.7m rather than 3.57m as stated.

o   The narrow gap between the side elevation and the property boundary would prevent future maintenance.

o   Concerns were expressed about the impact of excavations for the foundations, which would be at least three times the wall width.

Member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(3)