Agenda and minutes
PDF 194 KBVenue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury
Contact: Jenny Legge
| No. | Item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 2 July 2014. Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman. Councillor Roger Hunneman thanked the minute taker for the correction on page 3, paragraph 8. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes: Councillors David Allen, Jeff Beck, Ieuan Tuck and Julian Swift-Hook declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(5), but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Hilary Cole declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), but reported that, as her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillors Paul Hewer and Julian Swift-Hook reported that they had been lobbied on Agenda Items 4(2) and 4(4) respectively. |
|||||||||
|
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). |
|||||||||
|
Application No. and Parish: 14/01280/COMIND - Land North of Oaken Copse, Yattendon
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 14/01280/COMIND in respect of the construction of an earth banked slurry lagoon, at Land North of Oaken Copse, Yattendon, Berkshire. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter Danks, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mark Campbell introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Mr Danks in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · The slurry lagoon was part of the planned development of the Yattendon Estate. · Its presence would reduce the amount of tanker traffic moving through the village and would make the best use of the nutrients made available through the dairy farm; being able to store six months worth of production of slurry. · Pumping to the site would be done over fields and under roads and would move an amount of slurry equivalent to an estimated 1,000 tanker loads. · The location and design of the lagoon would minimise odour. Once filled, a crust would form and this layer would minimise odour; as would the separation and distance from receptors. The nearest neighbours were 600m to the south, in the opposite direction to the prevailing winds. This should create adequate dilution of the odour. · Safety concerns had been addressed with the proposed fence, in line with Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance. There would also be a life ring and an escape route constructed of a string of tyres along the perimeter. · Slurry would be applied to the surrounding land in a single campaign, over the course of a week. It would not be sprayed, but dropped onto the area and would be incorporated onto the ground within 24 hours. There would, of course, be odour during the period of application, as was usual. Councillor Jeff Beck asked for clarification as to the fencing that would be erected, and observed that there was a footpath near to the proposed site where local people walked their dogs. Mr Danks explained that an established hedgerow separated the footpath from the lagoon. The fencing was in line with the HSE sheet no. A159. It would be 1.3m minimum in height with stop-netting. To augment the stop-netting, there would also be one strand of barbed wire at a low level, to prevent dogs and other small non-domesticated animals, and another strand of barbed wire at a higher level to stop larger animals. Councillor Roger Hunneman offered the view that all the slurry would be applied in the area of the lagoon and surrounding land and that this would mean less movement of vehicles. Mr Danks concurred, but noted that vehicles would need to get onto the land to spread the slurry and establish a command centre for distribution. Councillor Paul Hewer asked how often slurry would be spread. Mr Danks explained that large farms were restricted in when they could apply to ... view the full minutes text for item 16.(1) |
|||||||||
|
Application No. and Parish: 14/01145/COMIND - Cobbs Farm Shop, Bath Road, Hungerford
Additional documents: Minutes: (Councillor Paul Hewer reported that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2)). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 14/01145/COMIND in respect of alterations and extensions to provide soft play space and additional ancillary kitchen, food preparation and storage space at Cobbs Farm Shop, Bath Road, Hungerford. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Charlotte Podger and Margaret Wilson Parish Council representatives, and Mr Tom Newey applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Isabel Johnson introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.
Charlotte Podger in addressing the Committee raised the following points:
· She was the Deputy Chair of the Hungerford Planning Committee · The Committee objected to previous, larger scale applications but considered that the current scheme was reasonable and therefore supported the proposal.
Councillor Virginia Von-Celsing asked whether they felt the development would direct business away from Hungerford town. Margaret Wilson believed that the development would attract people to the area which in turn would benefit the town. Mr Tom Newey in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · Alternative sites were not considered for the reason that they wanted to extend the current site and business rather than relocate altogether. · Concerns regarding the sustainability of the site were unfounded, the business was accessible by bus and adjoining footpaths. However, a large majority of visitors would arrive by car and there was sufficient parking space provided onsite. · The scale of the development would not meet the threshold to conduct a sequential test as suggested within the policy officers update point b (paragraphs 23 and 24 of the NPPF), the proposal would not increase the footprint of the building. · He accepted that the development was positioned within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but highlighted that the North Wessex Downs (NWD) AONB had not raised any objections against the current application or previous, larger scale applications. · Officers made reference to various contravening polices to reinforce their objection, he felt that many more policies supported the proposal which had been overlooked within the report. · There was a local need for recreational activities as proposed within the application. The business grew during a strained economic climate, the proposal sought to expand the business further and provide additional jobs for local people. · The key business focus was upon sourcing local products and supporting local providers. The kitchen extension would provide the facilities to expand the production of homemade, locally sourced food. · The children’s play suite was a part of a wider aim to teach children about sourcing of local products.
In response to questions asked, Mr Newey advised that the business employed people from local towns and villages, staff travelled to work predominantly by car and bus, they encourage the use of the car sharing scheme.
Mr Newey understood that, through transaction data collected in 2013/2014, visitors to the site ... view the full minutes text for item 16.(2) |
|||||||||
|
Application No. and Parish: 14/01391/COMIND - Land at Chieveley village hall, Chieveley
Additional documents: Minutes: (Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of Chieveley Parish Council and had been present when the application was discussed by them, but would consider the application afresh. As her interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 14/01391/COMIND in respect of an extension to south of Village Hall for additional pre school facility. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mike Belcher, Parish Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application. Derek Carnegie introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Mike Belcher in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · He wanted to make it clear that the Parish Council was supportive of the pre-schools aspirations, however, they objected to the store-room and the play area that abutted the road on an elevated bank. · The building was currently long and linear in design and, if approved, the proposal would extend it by a further 12m. There would be a loss of natural light as three of the six windows would be blocked for the store-room. · The Councillors believed that there were alternative options, for example, abutting the north east face of the building, that would overcome these objections. · There had been little consultation with residents or the Parish Council as the plans were only revealed at the Village Hall AGM. They would like to see a revision of the plans and rigorous public consultation with consideration given to other options. Councillor Hilary Cole noted that there had been little public consultation and inquired if the pre-school had approached the Parish Council. Mr Belcher confirmed that they had not been approached. Councillor Julian Swift-Hook opined that the Parish Council could have invited the applicants to present to them rather than waiting to be approached. Mr Belcher explained that the application had only been brought to their attention three weeks prior to that evening. Councillor Cole concluded that the first ten minutes of a Parish Council meetings were open for presentations, but neither the pre-school nor the architect had used the opportunity. The Chairman noted that it was not a material planning consideration as to whether there had been sufficient consultation, but whether this was an acceptable proposal. Councillor Cole, speaking as Ward Member, addressing the Committee raised the following points: · It was disappointing that the applicant or agent were not present for this discussion. · She was generally supportive of the aims of the Chieveley Recreational centre and had been Chairman for many years; overseeing the refurbishment in 2004. · There had been considerable extensions to the north already. Her primary concerns were the elongated nature of the building and the impact on ... view the full minutes text for item 16.(3) |
|||||||||
|
Application No. and Parish: 14/00400/HOUSE - Church Cottage, 1 Burys Bank Road, Greenham
Additional documents: Minutes: (Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(4) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Greenham Parish Council and Newbury Town Council who had previously considered the application, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. Councillor Swift-Hook also reported that his use of a computer during the meeting was in order to access information on the application before him. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). He also reported that he had been lobbied on this item. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4) concerning Planning Application 14/00400/HOUSE in respect of extensions and alterations at Church Cottage, 1 Burys Bank Road, Greenham In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Edmond applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Derek Carnegie introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Mr Edmond in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · The plans were misleading in terms of the scale of the development. The neighbouring property was significantly larger than his which was not made clear. · He had made a few preparatory improvements to the property and surrounding vegetation. · The plan was sympathetic to the unique character of the property and intended to bring the amenities up to a modern standard to meet family demands. · He had a good relationship with his neighbour, although he was aware that they objected to the application. · The proposed plans would improve the street scene. Councillor Julian Swift-Hook, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · The Planning Officer and Mr Edmond presented a strong case for approval. · He was surprised to hear that the neighbour was still concerned about the loss of light given that the amended design minimised the impact. · Concerns had been addressed and compromises had been made on both parts to minimise impacts whilst delivering improvements to the property. Councillor Swift-Hook proposed acceptance of Officer’s recommendation, the proposal was seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countrysidebe authorised to GRANT planning permission. Conditions: 1. The development of the extension shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 should it not be started within a reasonable time. 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawings 8050 01A, 13C, 14D and 15B received on 4 June 2014. Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with the submitted details assessed against Policy CC6 of the South East of Plan ... view the full minutes text for item 16.(4) |
|||||||||
|
Application No. and Parish: 14/01003/HOUSE - 2 Battery End, Newbury
Additional documents: Minutes: (Councillor David Allen, Jeff Beck and Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(5) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and in Councillor Allen’s and Beck’s cases, the Planning and Highways Committee. Councillor Allen had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh, however, Councillors Beck and Tuck had not been present at the debate. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5) concerning Planning Application 14/01003/HOUSE in respect of a two storey and single storey rear extension at 2 Battery End, Newbury In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Phil Barnet, Parish Council representative, Mr John Stather and Mr David Hatfull, objectors, and Mr Adis Karahodza applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Derek Carnegie introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Mr Barnet in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · He observed that there was a mixture of opinions at the Committee. · Members had looked at the impact on no. 198 and no. 196. The proposal was for a considerable extension to create a large family home. Loss of light would be detrimental to no. 4 Battery End in the morning. · The Design Statement warns against back filling and houses in this area had been built on generous plots. · There might be difficulties during construction for vehicles delivering to the site, as there were already issues with car parking for parents taking their children to Falkland School. Councillor Hilary Cole asked if he objected to the site. Mr Barnet reiterated that he was unclear as there was no strong reason to object and yet he felt there was more than met the eye. Councillor Virginia von Celsing opined that the access to this development for site traffic would be arranged as it would for any other development. Mr Barnet explained that the corner became heavily congested at the beginning and end of the school day. Mr Stather in addressing the Committee raised the following points: · Neighbours had only latterly become aware of the proposed extension; on 20 May 2014. They were shocked that the design would mean a doubling in the size of the current house. This would dominate the bottom of the gardens of nos. 198 and 196 and impact on no. 4. As the shrubs were currently in leaf, the impact during the winter months should not be underestimated. · The extension was out of keeping with other sympathetic extensions along the road and could set a precedent. They would not object to something more reasonable in size. · The proximity to Falkland School would mean that construction traffic would create a major problem on the corner. ... view the full minutes text for item 16.(5) |
|||||||||
|
Appeal Decisions relating to Western Area Planning Committee Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Western Area Planning Committee. Additional documents:
Minutes: Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Western Area. |