Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 29 January 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe expressed disappointment that, following a lengthy discussion at the last meeting, Sovereign Housing’s application for land to the rear of 9-15 High View, Calcot was found to be invalid for technical reasons. Liz Patient explained that this was in relation to the fact that the site in question was not entirely owned by Sovereign and this was not apparent at the time of the meeting. Councillor Metcalfe felt that his concerns in relation to the time taken and costs incurred by the Council should be highlighted with Sovereign.

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.

There were no declarations of interest received.

(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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/03073/NONMAT in respect of non-material amendments to Planning Permission 12/00623/FULD (erection of a new dwelling house). Amendments: omission of decorative brickwork; amended window appearance; and amended bargeboard appearance.

Following the Planning Officer, Bob Dray’s, introduction to the report, Councillor Sheila Ellison questioned the requirement for decorative brickwork as this was not apparent in the neighbouring property. Bob Dray explained that this formed part of the planning application and there was a standard condition for development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings etc. However, planning legislation did allow for some variations from approved planning applications and the consideration for Members was whether or not the variations for this application constituted a material amendment.

Councillor Alan Macro queried the process that would be undertaken should Members determine that the amendments were a material change. David Pearson explained that if the application was refused as being a material amendment, then the applicant could submit a S73 Application which would seek approval to make a material change from an approved application. It would be considered as a new application and could potentially come before Committee for determination.

In response to a query from Councillor Tim Metcalfe, Bob Dray confirmed that there was no protruding brickwork on the dwelling.

Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                    She was speaking on behalf of local residents and Burghfield Parish Council. It was felt that the amendments made amounted to a material change when compared to the approved application.

·                    The approved design was in keeping with Burghfield’s Village Design Statement which had been adopted by West Berkshire Council. However, the built dwelling was not in keeping with the Village Design Statement or the street scene due to the omission of decorative brickwork and amended window appearance. It was also a large property so was therefore very prominent.

Councillor Alan Law queried whether there was a specific reference to the appearance of windows in this part of Burghfield within the Village Design Statement. In response, Councillor Jackson-Doerge read from the Village Design Statement which stated that ‘The design of windows and doors should be in character with the building and in harmony with the architectural style of the surrounding development.’ This point was in relation to Burghfield as a whole.

Councillor Royce Longton, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                    He agreed with the view that the amendments constituted a material change and therefore the application should be refused.

·                    The erected dwelling was dull in appearance and detracted from the street scene, this would not have been the case with the approved application. In addition, the petitioners who objected to this application had no issue with the approved application.

Councillor Graham Pask expressed sympathy with the concerns that had been raised and found it difficult to understand why the approved plans had not been followed. Design was an important aspect when considering a planning application and it was for Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 13/03187/COMIND in respect of a change of use from agriculture to a mixed use comprising agriculture and use for the installation and operation of 6552 photovoltaic modules (Sui Generis), for a temporary period of 25 years. Thereafter, the restoration of the land to solely agricultural use.

Following the Planning Officer, Bob Dray’s, introduction to the report, Councillor Geoff Mayes queried who would be responsible for removing the solar equipment once the proposed 25 year period had elapsed, should permission be granted. In response, Bob Dray referred Members to conditions 3 (decommissioning) and 4 (removal of all equipment). If approved, these stated that the development would be removed in its entirety and the land restored to its former condition within 25 years and 6 months of the date that electricity was first generated by the development or within 6 months of the development failing to generate electricity for 12 consecutive months, whichever occurred first. He also clarified that the planning permission would continue to rest with the landowner and they would therefore hold responsibility for decommissioning and removal of equipment from the site. Enforcement powers could be utilised if requirements were not adhered to.

Councillor Alan Macro queried what would happen in the event that planning permission was granted, but the applicant was unable to reach an agreement with AWE to sell them the energy. Bob Dray explained that the application detailed an underground connection to AWE, but stated that, to the Council’s knowledge, no formal contract was in place between the applicant and AWE. If the application was approved and no agreement was reached with AWE, then it would be for the applicant to identify an alternative solution for connecting to the National Grid and potentially a further planning application if further development was involved.

Councillor Macro then referred to the agricultural use proposed to produce silage for feeding cattle in the winter months. If this did not proceed, would it be lawful for the use of the land to be entirely as a solar farm. Bob Dray explained that the agricultural use of the land would be lawfully retained and, if permission was approved, this would remain throughout the 25 year temporary period. Post the 25 year period it was proposed for the land to be restored to solely agricultural use. Bob Dray further clarified that legal advice had been sought on this point and he was confident that sufficient measures were in place to ensure agricultural use remained.

Councillor Royce Longton pointed out that there was potential in future for a planning application to be submitted to extend this arrangement beyond the 25 year period. Bob Dray acknowledged that there was potential to do so, and that any such application would be considered on its merits at that time. He also advised that solar equipment generally had a lifespan of some 25 years.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Thorne, Parish Council representative, and Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.(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.

Councillor Richard Crumly referred to the Planning Inspector’s decision to allow planning permission for 13/01065, The Walled Garden, New Lane Hill, Tilehurst. This had been refused by the Planning Committee, but the Planning Inspector found the scheme to be acceptable in relation to the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbours, the basis of the Committee’s two reasons for refusal. In addition, costs were partially awarded to the applicant as a result of the Inspector’s view that the Committee minutes failed to substantiate why the proposal was considered unacceptable in terms of the harm caused to the character and appearance of the street scene. Although specific evidence was felt to be given in relation to the effect on neighbours. Councillor Crumly raised the need for lessons to be learnt from this case.

Councillor Graham Pask recalled this particular item and was of the view that the Committee made a valid judgement on this retrospective application.

David Pearson added the view that this appeal decision demonstrated the need for Members to be clear in detailing their reasons for making a decision, including reference to specific planning policies, to help inform the minutes and avoid the risk of incurring costs.

A date of 25 March 2014 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the next Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 2 April 2014.