Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 4 December 2024 will be to follow.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2024 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 Item 4(2), as she was the Ward Member for Stratfield Mortimer, 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.

Councillor Geoff Mayes declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not 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 24/01866/FUL in respect of Erection of a dwelling with associated parking and landscaping, on Land at Middle Wood Bucklebury.
2. Simon Till 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 outlined in the main and update reports.
3. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Linzi Blakey, Gareth Jarrett and Caroline Jarrett objectors, James Wakelyn, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4. Gareth Jarrett addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

5. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
   • It was mentioned in the environmental report about the dangers to bats due to the potential development.
   • The objectors were unaware of any reforestation that had taken place since 2003.

Applicant Representation

6. James Wakelyn addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant

7. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
   • The business had previously been a partnership business until early 2024 when it had been restructured to a limited liability company.
   • The dwelling itself would be a private dwelling attached to the business by condition. 

Ward Member Representation

8. Councillor Christopher Read addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording
9. Councillor Paul Kander entered the meeting at 18:51pm.

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:
    • Officers noted that upon the conclusion of a temporary planning permission, which had been granted on the grounds of allowing a necessary rural workers dwelling for the purpose of establishment of a business on site, it would be normal for the applicant to apply for a permanent replacement if the business was running successfully, and the business’s accounts justified the sustaining of a permanent replacement under that business plan. The section 106 attached to a rural workers dwelling would require its removal.
    • Officers noted that the planning permission concerned for the temporary dwelling expired in 2022. Officers were aware at the time that there was a forthcoming application for the erection of a permanent replacement dwelling. Officers used discretion to not take action to remove the temporary dwelling, as it still fulfilled a useful purpose for the site while a permanent replacement was considered.
    • Officers stated that because the original building was associated with and justified by the authorised the use of the surrounding site as a forestry business and the new building would be justified by and conditioned to relate to the authorised use of the surrounding land. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/01212/FUL in respect of Demolition, ‘Change of Use’, alterations and erection of 4 no. dwellings (Class C3) and associated works, on land to rear of 37 to 39 King Street, Mortimer
2. Simon Till 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 outlined in the main and update reports.
3. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Graham Bridgman and Andrew Richardson Parish/Town Council representative, Councillor Nick Carter, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4. Graham Bridgman addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council Representative

5. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
   • The Development had been considered at the Parish Planning Committee, and Members had given their comments. However, the application had not been seen by the Parish Council as part of the initial design process prior to the application being submitted.

Ward Member Representation

6. Councillor Nick Carter addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

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:
   • Officers noted that the Case Officer had provided a comprehensive assessment regarding public amenity.
   • Officers noted that the public engagement aspect of the NDP’s Building for Life policy was a pre-planning requirement which applicants were recommended to comply with, rather than required to comply with.
   • Officers noted that the applicant did not seek pre-application advice for the application, at which that recommendation could have been highlighted. Officers noted that it would not be considered a strong potential reason for refusal.
   • Officers noted that if the application was close to or did comply with Building for Life, then it effectively sufficiently met the requirements of that policy for Officers to maintain a recommendation of approval.
   • Officers noted that a large fire appliance would be able to turn with the prescribed parking spaces in use.
   • Officers noted that all the parking spaces complied with the minimum standards of 2.4 x 4.8, with spaces in front of the carports made wider to allow movement between them.
   • Officers noted that the road access from King Street to the rear of the site would not be adopted, the waste service would service the site, there was a bin collection area agreed with the waste service.
   • Officers noted that Mortimer should have been referred to as suburban, but it was village with a settlement boundary and the principle of further residential development was considered acceptable.
   • Officers noted that the density of the development was in keeping with the grain  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.