Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 20^th September 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 20^th September 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

·       Page 10, point 13: Councillor Codling to be referred to as ‘she’.

·       Page 15, point 14 under the Debate to be corrected to ‘Councillor Codling’.

·       Page 15, second bullet point from the top to read as follows: The ecology ‘report’.

·       Page 15, point under the Debate to read as follows: Councillor Gaines mentioned that there had been a lot of concern raised about the septic tank and bore hole, but they were not planning matters.

·       Item 4(2), 23/01686/FUL, Orchard Day Nursery, Everington Bungalow, Yattendon: Councillor Carolyne Culver recalled that it had been agreed that informatives should be added regarding the septic tank and bridge.

The Chairman voiced his concern with signing the minutes given the level of errors. The video evidence would need to be checked to see if what had been raised by Councillor Culver was correct.(Democratic Services have reviewed the recording from the meeting that took place on 20^th September and can confirm it was agreed that the Construction Method Statement be an additional condition with bridge improvements to aid access named as part of that. Additional Informatives were also agreed in relation to the bore hole and septic tank.)

Mr Till believed that the decision notice for the item had been issued. Mrs Sharon Armour suggested that the points be noted in the current minutes and Officers would need to check the decision notice and report back to the Committee on whether the informatives had been included. The Chairman raised his discontent with what was a substantial error. Mrs Armour clarified that there was uncertainty as to whether an error had been made.

·       Item 4(2), 23/01686/FUL, Orchard Day Nursery, Everington Bungalow, Yattendon: Councillor Howard Woollaston believed that the condition had been agreed to allow ten years for tree planting and screening. The proposed consent had detailed only five years and Councillor Woollaston reported that he had queried this with Officers at the time and asked for confirmation that this had been changed to ten. Mr Till stated that he would check this point and report back to Committee.

The Chairman raised concern that there were two substantive issues with the minutes. Mrs Armour concurred with concerns regarding the condition and advised that any possible inaccuracies would be noted in these minutes. The decision notice needed to be checked and, if an error had occurred, Officers would need to look in to changing the decision using the appropriate mechanism.

RESOLVED that:

·       Officers would check the recording and decision notice for Item 4(2) 23/01686, Orchard Day Nursery, Everington Bungalow, Yattendon, and report back to the Committee on whether the informatives concerning the septic tank and bridge had been agreed and if these had been included in the issued decision notice. 

·       Officers would check the recording and decision notice for Item 4(2) 23/01686, Orchard Day Nursery,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

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 Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) because it related to his ward. Councillor Woollaston 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.

Councillor Clive Hooker declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) because it related to his ward. Councillor Hooker declared that he had been contacted regarding the application however, only in relation to the process of the Committee meeting. 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.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3) because it related to his ward and he had taken an interest in the application and called it in. He would listen to the debate on the item and decide accordingly. Councillor Vickers 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).

The Chairman proposed that agenda item 4(3) be considered first on the agenda.

Councillor Hooker proposed that agenda item 4(2) be considered second on the agenda.

Both proposals were seconded and at the vote they were carried.

RESOLVED that the agenda items would be considered in the following order: 4(3), 4(2), 4(1).  

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/01260/HOUSE in respect of an additional vehicular access and new workshop building.

2.      Ms Kirby 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. He indicated that the existing access to the south of the property would be improved. It was proposed to create an additional access onto the Public Right of Way (PRoW) to the north of the property. PRoW officers had not raised any objection. Vehicular access to the public highway would be unchanged. The property would generate a small number of vehicle movements per day (estimated at three in and three out), which would not be sufficient to warrant refusal. However, the reason for refusal on highway drainage issues remained.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Dr David Thomas and Mr Darren Durham, Parish Council representatives, Ms Briony Malden and Mr Duncan Wolage applicant/agent, and Councillor Tony Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.      Dr Thomas and Mr Durham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The additional access was at an accident black spot on Craven Road – it was felt to be unnecessary and would create additional risk.

·       Craven Road was the main road between Inkpen and Hungerford. While it was well-known by residents, it was not known to visitors and there were frequent altercations on this part of the road.

·       Limited space would result in people reversing from the access onto a blind spot.

·       Without the ability to turn round, vehicles would be forced to continue into Inkpen to find a suitable turning location.

·       The road was not wide enough for vehicles to pass and this location had traditionally been used for vehicles to pull in.

·       Google maps and the site plans did not convey the dangerous nature of this part of the road.

·       For the above reasons, the Parish Council felt that this element should be rejected.

·       It was alleged that the Highways Officer had ignored the report from the PRoW Officer that the northern frontage of Kates Cottage formed part of the highway. This affected the conditions related to turning circles.

·       The PRoW map showed the impact of the application.

·       Policy CS16 applied in this instance.

·       The Council’s Drainage Engineer had raised objections on the application. The planned soakaway contravened a mandatory building regulation H2 Drainage - Fields and Mounds paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 27-30.

·       The plan that accompanied the application was misleading, as it did not show the extent of hedging and landscaping, or the topography.

·       The proposed driveway to the north of the property would obliterate the amenity land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/02870/FUL in respect of the demolition of an existing structurally compromised cottage and provision of a replacement cottage, with provision for access and related landscaping.

2.      Ms Cheyanne Kirby 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 stated that as mentioned in the Officer’s presentation, the property did have an existing access to the northern side that served one parking space. The proposal before the Committee was to provide an access to the rear of the building to provide three car parking spaces. This would cause an increase in the amount of vehicle movements out of an existing access that had virtually no sight lines. As a result, Highways Officers had advised to have the building set back to provide some sight lines to the south across the site.

4.      Mr Goddard advised that the access between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring property’s garage to the north was also considered too narrow and a wider access had been sought to go to the rear of the property. This would involve moving the proposed property 2.4 metres back from the road and 0.4 metres to the south, widening the access overall. Taking this into account, Highways Officers were satisfied with the provision of the access.

5.      Mr Goddard added that during the construction phase there would be a temporary access on the southern part of the site that would enable materials to be delivered during construction. This was set out within the Construction Management Plan that had been submitted. In conclusion Mr Goddard confirmed that Highways Officers had no objections to the proposal.

6.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Sue Tulloch, Parish Council representative, Mr Anthony Banfield, Ms Lindsey Mason and Mr Martyn Wright, objectors, Mr Rob McLennan, agent, and Councillor Clive Hooker, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

7.      Ms Tulloch in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The development of Greengates was highly controversial and 27 villagers had raised concerns across two applications.

·       Greengates sat within the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). There was disappointment to be losing a quality heritage asset, particularly as others in the village had been preserved rather than destroyed.

·       The Conservation Officer consultation response was clear that the footprint of Greengates should not be repositioned in order to protect the street scene and character of the conservation area. The Parish Council fully supported this view.

·       Regarding the access, there was currently no vehicle access to the rear of the property. The application justified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/02379/COND in respect of an application for Approval of Details Reserved by Condition 9 (Zero carbon) of planning permission 19/02979/OUTMAJ - Outline application for the erection of a new logistics warehouse building (for occupation by Walker Logistics) (Use Class B8) with ancillary office floorspace, an aircraft museum building (Use Class D1), and associated access, car parking and landscaping. Matters to be considered: Scale.

2.      Ms Sian Cutts 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.

Agent Representation

3.      Mr James Hicks in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Outline planning permission and a subsequent reserved matters approval were in place for the development at Lambourn Woodlands.

·       The current condition discharge application was the final approval required to enable development to lawfully commence.

·       The discharge application and condition nine was presented to the Committee in August 2023 and the Committee had refused the discharge of the condition. Following this refusal, the applicant team had worked closely with Officers to understand the Committee’s concerns and also to provide a suitable technically robust response.

·       The proposal presented in respect of condition nine was highly technical and addressed all requirements.

·       It was hoped that the Committee agreed with Officers that condition nine could now be discharged and development could commence.

Member Questions to the Agent

4.      Members asked questions of the agent representative and were given the following responses:

·       Mr Hicks confirmed that the carbon emissions plan for the condition dealt with the energy used in the building and the building’s built fabric. It was nothing to with how the building operated including the aircraft and this had been agreed with Officers.

·       Mr Hicks clarified that he had not referred to robust systems but had stated that the report and response provided in terms of the earlier refusal was robust.

Ward Member Representation

5.      Councillor Woollaston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       He had opposed the application from the start and he suspected if it had been put before the current Committee it would have been refused.

·       It remained his view that it was the wrong building in the wrong location.

·       The current application was a technical request to release a condition referring to carbon zero.

·       Experienced Officers had confirmed that the applicant’s submission met environmental requirements and he could therefore see no reason to not accept the Officer recommendation albeit reluctantly.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

6.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Emily Ashton-Jelly reported that in relation to unregulated energy in a building, it did not include any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)