Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on Wednesday 23rd November 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2022 were approved as a true and correct record.

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.

Councillors Jeff Beck, Andy Moore and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as their interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they 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).

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/02269/LBC2 in respect an application for Listed Building Consent at 15 Bridge Street, Hungerford, RG17 0EG.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Team Leader – Development Control, 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 Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant Listed Building Consent, subject to the conditions outlined in the main report.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard did not have any observations.

Ward Member Representation

4.     Councillor Claire Rowles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application was for retrospective consent, which should not be how planning matters were dealt with by West Berkshire Council.

·         Councillor Rowles noted that she had advised Hungerford Town Council that she would speak on their behalf, and that they were watching the application with interest.

·         Two planning applications had been refused on the site, in 1985 and 2022, seeking to create another separate flat. The applicant then sought a Certificate of Lawfulness for using part of the first floor as a flat. The applicant appeared to have ignored the need to seek planning permission, which was required, instead seeking to remedy the use of the first floor through retrospective consent. If the Committee approved the Officer’s recommendations it would be encouraging to other residents to ignore the planning process.

·         The application before the Committee was to approve the filling in of the entrance to the wing of the flat, and to install a door. It was clear at the site visit that to properly consider the Listed Building Consent application the Committee would have to consider all aspects of planning, including the Certificate of Lawfulness. No Listed Building Consent had been sought for the stairs or other internal changes.

·         It was unclear why Planning Officers had approved the Certificate of Lawfulness the day before the Committee meeting, when the application was linked to the application before the Committee.

·         Councillor Rowles concluded that there was a clear, calculated effort by the applicant to ultimately achieve planning permission in stages.

5.     Councillor James Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Cole noted that Hungerford Town Council had accepted that there was evidence that the door previously existed, and as a result, it could not be contested. However, the justification for the application was that Council Tax had been paid on the previously unapproved flat.

·         Councillor Cole noted that the Ward Members’ aim was for the Committee to defer the application until all of the applications relating to the site could be considered. However, the actions of the Planning Officers in issuing the Certificate of Lawfulness had forced the Committee’s hand.

·         As Heritage Champion, Councillor Cole questioned the point of Listed Building Consent if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.(1)

Councillors Jeff Beck, Andy Moore and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the Planning and Highways Committee of Newbury Town Council which had considered the application, but reported that, as their interest was a personal or other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Adrian Abbs declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2), and that it was situated within his ward.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/01784/FULD in respect of the proposed demolition of existing 2 bedroom bungalow (no. 235 Andover Road) along with existing garage, and erection of 2 No. dwellings, external alterations to Newbury House and associated landscaping at 237 and 235 Andover Road, Newbury, West Berkshire, RG14 6NG.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Team Leader – Development Control, 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 Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that there was a Highways section within the main report, but noted that a number of changes had occurred. Mr Goddard noted that the two new houses would generate eight vehicle movements each per day, with the flats generating an additional four in total. As it was situated on an A road, Mr Goddard considered this negligible. Mr Goddard noted that the access had been widened to allow fire service access, while he was not convinced they could turn in easily fronting the new dwellings, the statutory requirement was only that the fire service could get within 45 metres, which was achievable. Mr Goddard noted that there were 22 car parking spaces recommended, of which the application set out 21, which was not enough to raise an objection, but Mr Goddard hoped to work with the applicant to rectify this matter, and recommended amending Condition 9 to require further information. In conclusion, Highways did not object to the proposed application.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council representative, Martyn Rees, objector, and Luke Challenger and Ian Blake, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.     Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Foot noted that the application had come before Newbury Town Council on two occasions. Newbury Town Council objected to the first due to concerns about traffic on Dormer Close, and the properties on the south of the site and their impact on access. The properties on the south of the site were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.(2)