Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 6 November 2013.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 6^th November 2013 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 interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Richard Crumly declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), and reported that, as his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of 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.)

(Councillor Richard Crumly declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he knew the applicant through his line of work. As his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest he left the meeting at 6:35pm and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/02236/OUTD in respect of the access and layout of proposed plans to construct one dwelling and demolish a garage.

Councillor Graham Pask sought clarification in respect of how many planning decisions had been taken to appeal. David Pearson confirmed that the 08/01740/OUTD was dismissed at appeal on 28 July 2008 for the following reasons:

·              Two dwellings would harm the open, spacious character of the area.

·              The vehicular access for the scheme was different to that which was proposed.

David Pearson stated that, to his knowledge, an appeal had been lodged for application 06/00510/FULD which was also withdrawn.

Paul Goddard advised the Committee that application 06/02582/FUL had been considered at appeal and subsequently refused for the following reasons:

·              Restricted visibility on to Station Road.

·              The visibility splay on to Station Road was outside the control of the applicant.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe requested clarification in respect of the site footprint referenced on the plans. David Pearson explained that the plans illustrated the footprint of the site only.

Before continuing, the Committee sought clarification from the West Berkshire Council Solicitor in attendance, Sarah Clarke, in respect of whether the appeal information introduced by Paul Goddard could be used to consider the application. Sarah Clarke explained that the five day rule applied to new information submitted into the Planning Authority. In this instance the information was already available and within the possession of the Council and was therefore acceptable as it was not new information. David Pearson apologised for the administrative oversight that had lead to the application and appeal mentioned by Paul Goddard not being included  and summarised in the planning history section of the committee but confirmed that he did recall this application and appeal. He also confirmed that the access issues that were considered in that application and appeal were the same as those being considered in the current application .

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Jonathan Humphrey, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Humphrey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·              The current proposal was based upon the feedback from an earlier application which sought to develop two dwellings on the site. The wall to the south of the access route had been lowered to improve the visibility splay as suggested and he had an arrangement made with the neighbour to ensure the wall remained at a suitable height.

·              A similar application had been approved nearby with an equally difficult access onto Station Road.

·              He was unhappy with the inconsistent feedback received in respect of the impact the application would have upon the highway.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.(1)

(Councillor Richard Crumly rejoined the meeting)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 13/02394/HOUSE in respect of the removal of a flat roofed, single storey extension and the development of a two storey and single storey extension.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Tony Renouf, Parish Council representative and Mr Andrew Robinson, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Renouf in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·              The application was supported by the Parish Council who acknowledged that the amended proposals addressed previous concerns and offered improvements to the overall appearance of the property.

·              The application was thought to offer a more aesthetically pleasing property which was not detrimental to the surrounding area and supported by neighbours.

·              The property was somewhat visible when accessing Woolhampton but was mainly obscured by the tress when in leaf.

·              The proposed volume increase of the development was not significant when compared to the current size of the property. The original dwelling was modest in size but the property had been extended over a period of time.

·              The property was already disproportionate in size when compared to its original state, therefore, ENV24 guidance was not applicable.

·              It was questionable whether any proposal on the site would be deemed satisfactory by the planning authority due to the current size of the property. Current extensions were well established and the proposal was not thought to pose a detrimental impact to the surrounding area and countryside.

Mr Robinson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·              The original property was developed in 1960 and was modest in size, the property was then extended in 1961.

·              The first application was lost at appeal because it was thought that the site lay within an area of outstanding beauty, which was not the case.

·              The current application proposed a total volume increase of 3.4% which was predominantly a result of the proposed pitched roof.

·              The application proposed a compact design and make over of the current property to improve and enhance the family home.

·              He felt that the basis for any application being approved on the site was to decrease the overall size of the existing property.

·              He disagreed with the Officers report which suggested that the application failed to comply with ENV24. He felt that the application offered an improved development, remaining with the current footprint of the existing property and only increased in volume due to the inclusion of a pitched roof.

·              The application was supported by neighbours.

Councillor Irene Neill, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·              She failed to understand why Officers had not recommended approval for the application, the application proposed a slight volume increase within the existing footprint.

·              The development would improve the appearance of the property and provide necessary improvements overall.

·              The application was supported by the Parish Council and neighbours in the surrounding area.

Councillor Richard Crumly expressed his view that often people submitted letters of objection but it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.(2)

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.

A date of 11 December 2013 at 09:30 was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the next Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 18 December 2013.