Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting held on 21 June 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following amendment:

·         Page 31, paragraph 67, second line, should state: ‘Councillor Barnett asked whether the applicants were considering some form of encapsulated area to prevent airborne contamination.’

The Chairman proposed that Agenda Item 4(1), Institute for Animal Health, be moved to the end of the agenda due to the number of members of the public present for items 4(2) Inglewood House and 4(3) Juniper Rise.

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 Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) as it related to her ward. Councillor Culver reported that she had not been informed in advance that the item would be placed at the end of the agenda and would therefore make the Parish Council representative aware of this change.

Councillors Adrian Abbs and Dennis Benneyworth reported that they had been lobbied by the Audley Group on Agenda Item 4(2).

Councillor Denise Gaines reported that she had been lobbied by one of the residents regarding Agenda Item 4(2).

Councillor Heather Codling declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3). Prior to being elected as a District Councillor and Parish Councillor in May 2023, Councillor Codling had objected to the application on West Berkshire Council’s website. Councillor Codling felt that she had not pre-determined the decision with regards to the current report and information however, for transparency purposes would leave the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter following making a representation on behalf of the Parish Council and as Ward Member.

Councillor Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3) as the Architect, Duncan Mathewson, practised within his ward and Councillor Woollaston had used his services to develop an outbuilding. Councillor Woollaston stated that he did not feel that this affected his decision making on the application.  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).

Item starts at 7 minutes and 45 seconds into the recording.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/02079/COMIND in respect of the redevelopment of land within the existing walled garden to provide 22 additional units of C2 accommodation as an extension to the Audley Inglewood care community and a new pavilion with associated landscaping, infrastructure and parking.

2.     Mr Masie Masiiwa 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 Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the schedule of conditions (Section 8 of the report) and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the review of the Affordable Housing Viability subject.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Gareth Dowding if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Dowding responded that he had none to make at this time.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Smalley, Parish Council representative, Mr Michael Guest (Inglewood Owners Association Committee), objector, Matthew Nicholson, applicant, and Councillor Tony Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     Mr Richard Smalley (Kintbury Parish Council) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• The Parish Council did object to the application however, now primarily only had concerns about construction traffic.
• The alternative route proposed was understood however, from previous experience of development at the site there was concern contractors would take the shortest route through Kintbury village. It was questioned how the alternative route would be enforced. 

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

6.     Members asked questions of the Parish Council representative and were given the following responses:

• It was largely felt that other concerns previously raised by the Parish Council about the application had been addressed by the process. This did not mean the Parish Council agreed with the proposal but were pragmatic about it.
• Regarding concerns about enforcement of the construction route, Mr Smalley noted that the Highways Officer had commented that there were no reported incidents recorded on the alternative route via Hungerford. The Parish Council’s remaining concern was that contractors would not follow the alternative route and would take the quickest route through Kintbury village. There were weekly traffic issues on Kintbury High Street. It was a narrow street with pinch points and parked cars. If the alternative route was not utilised the fear was that existing problems would be exacerbated. Mr Smalley queried how the alternative route would be enforced.
• To the Parish Council’s knowledge there were not traffic issues on the proposed alternative route. If this route was enforced, it would reduce pressure on Kintbury High Street during the construction phase. 

Objector Representation

7.     Mr Michael Guest (Chair of the Owners Association at Inglewood) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• A survey had been carried out with residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(1)

                Item starts at 2 hours, 22 minutes and 40 seconds into the recording.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/00246/HOUSE in respect of a retrospective application for alterations to approved scheme 12/00538/HOUSE; first floor extension to single storey house, single storey extension to the west and new garage to replace existing.

2.     Ms Donna Toms 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 Director of 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 Gareth Dowding if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Dowding responded that he had none to make at this time.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Heather Codling, Parish Council representative, Mr Ivan Simonowski and Mr Ian Goodwin, objectors, Zelina Francis, supporter, Duncan Mathewson, agent, and Councillor Heather Codling as Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     Councillor Codling (Cold Ash Parish Council) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Codling was not a Councillor of the Parish Council at the time the application was considered and would therefore read out comments on behalf of the Parish Council.

·         The proposal was out of keeping with neighbouring properties and was overbearing. 

·         There was concern of the garage being used as a separate dwelling.

·         There was concern about the retrospective nature of the application as it did not comply with previous plans that had been approved by the Local Authority.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.     Mr Ivan Simonowski in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The changes to the original application were significant and substantial. It was at least one metre or 13 courses of bricks higher than that agreed.

·         It overwhelmed the view from the road and adjacent properties.

·         The building was now the only three storey house on Ashmore Green Road, which set a precedent going forward.

·         The changes should have been thought through at the original planning stage. It was felt that the retrospective route had always been the intention. There had been a total disregard to the planning process. Objection had not been raised to the original plans however, this had completely changed. No respect had been shown for those in neighbouring properties. 

·         Mr Simonwski reported that he had changed his bungalow to a house and had adhered to the planning permission granted.

8.     Mr Ian Goodwin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was representing the other residents on Ashmore Green Road who had raised objections and who felt cheated because they had not objected to the original plans. It was felt that what had been built had no relationship to what was originally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(2)

This item was deferred until the next meeting of Western Area Planning Committee on 23^rd August 2023.