Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 4 September 2024.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4^th September 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 (1), by virtue of the fact that the application site in Sulhamstead bordered her own Ward and she held Councillor Surgeries at the Willink School and Burghfield Library, and was regularly visited by members of the public from the Bradfield Ward. The application had not been discussed during Councillor Poole’s Councillor Surgeries however, she wished to declare that she lived within proximity to the application site. 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 Janine Lewis declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (2), by virtue of the fact that she was predisposed for this item. Due to the level of interest, Councillor Lewis determined to leave the Committee for the duration of the item and not take part in the discussion or vote.

Councillor Clive Taylor declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (2), by virtue of the fact that he believed that it might be considered and perceived that he was predetermined on the item. Councillor Taylor stated that he would therefore leave the Committee for the duration of the item and not take part in the discussion or vote. Councillor Taylor would, however, make a representation on the application on behalf of the Parish Council and in his role as Ward Member.

The Chairman declared an interest in agenda item 4(2), by virtue of the fact that he had received a phone call from the agent asking if an email could be sent to all Members of the Committee. It was presumed that all Members had received this information and therefore all had this same interest to declare. 

Councillor Vicky Poole declared an interest in agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she was the Portfolio Holder for the Transformation Service, which was the service presenting the application to the Committee on behalf of West Berkshire Council. Councillor Poole stated that she would participate in the discussion on the item however, would not take part on the vote.

Councillors Paul Kander and Janine Lewis declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (4), by virtue of the fact that they were Ward Members for the area.   

(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 24/00533/FULMAJ in respect of Section 73a: Variation of conditions 16 (Private Equestrian Use), 4 (CEMP), 6 (Landscaping), 7 (Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan) and 15 (Manure Storage and Disposal) and remove condition 5 (Tree Protection) of previously approved application 21/03260/COMIND: Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian and erection of stable block/yard, menage and creation of associated access. Retention of 4 No. temporary field shelters and mobile stable unit on skids.

2.       Ms Gemma Kirk 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.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application and his full representation can be viewed here: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024. In summary it was confirmed that Highways’ Officers raised no objection to the proposal.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter James and Mr John Braithwaite, objectors and Ms Amanda Cottingham, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

5.       Mr Peter James and Mr John Braithwaite addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       It was since the Oakdown Fields facility had started operating that a degradation of the surrounding trails had been noticed, and horses and riders from Oakdown Fields had been noticed using these paths. If riders kept to the bridle paths there would not be an issue. Horses and riders from the facility had been noticed travelling along Short Heath Lane and using the woods.

·       A complaint had been submitted to West Berkshire Council regarding the use of certain paths by horse riders from the site. It had taken a long time to receive a response from officers and the only response received had been in relation to the campervan. The matter of the paths in question being used by horse riders had been raised on local Facebook groups. It was believed that the local Ward Member, Councillor Ross Mackinnon, was aware of the issue.

·       The rate of growth of the occupancy of the premises had only accelerated since spring 2024. In 2023, the property had been mainly vacant. There had only been one spring/summer where 16 horses had been accommodated at the facility, which was why the quality of paths was getting worse. This was not believed to be anecdotal evidence as it had been witnessed and raised by several members of the public. It was not felt that the owners engaged with the community.

Applicant Representation

7.       Ms Amanda Cottingham addressed the Committee. This representation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/01667/TPW in respect of Step 1. Installation of new fencing around field margins and Public Rights of Way (PRoW) routes within the RPAs of Tree Protection Order (TPO) trees. Step 2. Methodology and design for upgraded footpath along the central tree lined and hedgerow section of PRoW and within the RPAs of retained trees. Step 3. Design methodology and construction of proposed drainage improvements of existing ditches within the RPAs of retained trees.

2.       Jon Thomas 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 planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. In summary it was confirmed that Highways’ Officers raised no objection to the proposal.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Clive Taylor, Parish Council representative, LaDonna McDonald and Joan Lawrie, objectors and Clive Taylor, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.       Councillor Taylor addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.       Ms LaDonna McDonald and Ms Joan Lawrie addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

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

• Regarding the reasons for the fencing, Ms Lawrie confirmed that when the original clearance work had taken place it had been asked why fencing was proposed and it was confirmed that the intention was to put sheep on the land. This had however, not happened.

Ward Member Representation

9.       Councillor Taylor addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

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:

• Mr Till confirmed that it was correct that the default state of the land was agricultural unless it had received planning permission for a different purpose.
• Livestock could be grazed on any piece of agricultural land as long as there was no extant planning permission with a restriction on grazing livestock. It was clarified, in the case of abandoned use, that livestock could be grazed without planning permission.
• The landowners did not have to specify what the land would be used for once fenced. The owners could do as they wished as long as it was an agricultural use of the land and did not involve development.
• The potential impact on trees was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 24/01163/REG3 in respect of the proposal to change the usage for Laburnam from Age Concern class F2 to class E for WBC Staff Offices

2.       Ms Alice Attwood 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.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application and in summary Highways’ Officers had raised no objection to the application. Mr Goddard’s full representation can be found here: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Stacey Bradshaw, Gabrielle Mancini and Georgie Davis applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant Representation

5.       Ms Bradshaw, Ms Mancini and Ms Davis addressed the Committee. They stated that they did not wish to make a representation but were happy to answer any questions on the application.

Member Questions to the Applicant

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

·       There was a maximum of nine desk spaces, and the applicants stated that full capacity would only be used when there were team meetings, and the applicant stated that these would be infrequent.

·       There would be at least two duty staff present on site as well as drop ins from staff between client visits.

·       There would be eight confirmed parking spaces on site. The applicant stated that the current staff workplace had six parking spaces which had been sufficient.

·       The office would be staff only and would not be public facing.

·       There was no designated disabled parking space on site.

·       There was no designated bike storage on site. The applicant stated that there was a private garden with sheds that were available to use by staff where bikes could be stored.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Mr Goddard commented that Members would be able to include a condition that required a dedicated disabled parking space if it was felt it would be useful. Mr Goddard stated that normally, with a car park that had less than ten parking spaces, a disabled parking space was not requested. There was a ratio of 4% disabled car parking per car park, but it was noted that the car park in question was below the threshold of ten spaces. 

·       Mr Goddard stated that if an employee who required a disabled parking space worked at the location in the future, then it was possible that this could be looked into at that time. Councillor Janine Lews was of the view that it would be more appropriate to include a disabled space at the current time so that any future employee requiring use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

1.        The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 24/00955/FUL in respect of a retrospective change of an area of waste land approx. 200sqm in the south of the site to provide car park space for up to six cars. Removal of storage shed (7.3m x 4.3m) and a derelict greenhouse.

2.       Ms Alice Attwood 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.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard did not have any further observations.

4.       The Chairman noted that nobody had registered to speak on the application.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Mrs Attwood stated that there was a condition for an Arboricultural Method Statement, which would ensure there was oversight of what happened on site, and secondary triggers for mitigation and compensation. Officers noted that there could be a need for remedial work to make sure that there was longevity.

·       Ms Attwood stated that the current surface was type one, which was semi permeable and partly loose.

·       Regarding restrictions on opening times, Mrs Atwood stated that this was partly due to objections raised by local residents to car doors being shut at night by carers. Officers understood the extra capacity was not required at night and this was why the hours had been agreed. It was expected that administrative staff and contractors who were only present during the day would use the staff parking.

·       Ms Attwood noted the need to balance priorities when resurfacing the car park. Tarmac would be quieter but would likely harm the trees covered by the Tree Protection Order (TPO). Officers noted that the noise management plan set out where the sensitive receptors were, and other mitigation methods could be introduced. 

·       Ms Attwood confirmed that no lighting was included as part of the scheme, but a lighting condition was included so that all external lighting details would need to be submitted to the planning department so it could be checked and confirmed as being necessary.

·       Regarding why the application was retrospective, Mr Till commented that there were permitted development rights for commercial organisations to put hard standing down on their land, and it was not unusual for an applicant to be confused as to when the permitted development rights applied.

Debate

6.       Councillor Lewis opened the debate by supporting the application. She proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Kander.

7.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Kander, to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.