Agenda and draft minutes

As the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had given their apologies Members were asked to elect a Chairman for the meeting.

Motion: Councillor Billy Drummond nominated Councillor Tony Vickers be Chairman for the meeting, this was seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver.

The motion was Resolved.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 23 August 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 August 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Carolyne Culver raised that on page 16 members talked about the discharge of conditions, the Chairman confirmed that this would be discussed at the next PAG meeting.

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 Woolaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) as it related to his ward.

Councillor Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) as it related to her ward.

(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).

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

Item starts at 8 minutes and 7 seconds into the recording.

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/00642/FUL in respect of retrospective a two new storage bays utilising existing containers. To be used to house machinery and provide weatherproof cover for existing items within the yard. Martin Collins Enterprises Ltd, Cuckoo Copse, Lambourn Woodlands, Hungerford,

2.      Mr Matthew Shepherd 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 Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Chris Harris Lambourn Parish Council representative, Bridget Jones, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.      Chris Harris had informed that the Parish Council had submitted a request for him to speak, the officers had no record of such request but as Members could recall at the site visit that the Parish Council had said they would be speaking, the Committee voted and resolved to allow Chis Harris to speak.

In addressing the Committee Chis Harris raised the following points:

·       It was yet another retrospective planning application and he highlighted the sites planning history.

·       The Parish Council objected the application.

·       The Membury business area had a history of anti-social behaviour.

·       The height of the construction was too high and impacted the local amenities.

·       If a planning application had been submitted, then the issues could have been resolved via consultation.

·       The structures were temporary and thus could be moved to a more suitable location on the site.

Objector Representation

5.      Bridget Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Since she moved into the area in 2012 there had been many changes that had impacted on the quality of live for residents.  Local residents tried to discuss any issues with businesses and Mr Collins had previously been responsive.  This had not happened with this development.

·       The construction could be seen from the driveway.  It was a 26 foot structure that dominated the site.

·       There was a history in the area of retrospective planning applications being accepted.

·       Her view would be interrupted for up to 6 months of the year and local trees in the area were dying, she wanted samples to see if this was due to water runoff from the construction.

·        The report said the containers were already on site, but they were in a different location.

·       There seemed to be one rule for businesses and another for residents when it came to planning matters.

·       She did not object to the construction but to its location and the impact of water drainage was having on local trees and flooding the front of her property.

Member Questions to the Objector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(1)

Councillor Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) as it related to her ward.

Item starts at 56 minutes and 10 seconds into the recording.

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/01686/FUL in respect of a single storey extensions, Orchard Day Nursery, Everington Bungalow, Everington Hill, Yattendon.

2.      Matthew Shepherd 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 Control Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update report.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Bickman Smith Parish Council representative, Marian Spain, objector and Gareth Jones, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.      Councillor Bickman Smith, Yattendon Parish Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       They were concerned that 17 trees had been felled on the site, they had provided a sound barrier from the M4 motorway.

·       The remaining walnut tree on the southwest boundary should be protected throughout the development.  The tree did have a TPO and thus should not be harmed.

·       All existing conditions from the current planning application should be maintained.

·       They were concerned that the current septic tank, shared with neighbouring properties, was too old to meet current and increased demand. It was also located near to the River Pang and thus contamination could occur.

·       There was no mains water at the property. Water was obtained from a borehole which was shared by the neighbouring properties. Increased demand may not be met and the water was contaminated

·       The additional development appears to double the size of the footprint of the existing dwelling.

·       There was a 5-tonne weight limit on the bridge used to access the property. This will create issues with deliveries of materials to the site.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.      Marian Spain in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The application lacks details in regards to screening on the North and East Border.

·       The application lacks detail in regards to the boundary treatments and the steps taken to protect tree roots whilst foundations were carried out.

·       Was this an extension or new building.

·       The number of toilets and showers would increase because of this application putting pressure on available water and waste.

·       The property was accessed via a small bridge that was not suitable for large vehicles.

·       Concern raised in regard to the increase in size of the foot print and the impact this will have on the change to the character and design of the existing property in the AONB.

·       The bungalow is very close to Everington Cottage- two of the walls form the boundary between the two sites. There is not right of access from adjacent land for construction.

·       No landscaping should be removed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.(2)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/01116/HOUSE in respect of proposed two storey side and rear extensions.  The Old Post House, Newbury Road, Shefford Woodlands, Hungerford.

2.      Bob Dray 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 Control Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution Caroline Downie, agent, and Ashley Walton, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent / Application Representation

4.      Caroline Downie and Ashley Walton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The property has evolved over the years to accommodate past owners the application before the Committee was to allow the growth of the current occupiers and so they could accommodate their disabled father who would move into the ground floor if application approved.

·       The extension would enable a staircase to be moved to allow compliance with current regulations.

·       The design was to be subservient to the existing building.

·       The increase to the existing building would be 28% in floor size.  Examples were given of properties that had vastly increased their footage at Committee and also those increased by officer delegated powers.  All close to this property.

·       The proposal complies with policy C6.

·       The scheme was on a large plot and the building could absorb the extensions.

·       Was an improvement on a previous submitted scheme, well designed and used quality materials.

·       No negative impact on neighbouring amenities.

·       Family of three who had lived in the property since 2014 and await another addition to their family.

·       After the loss of their mother-in-law they are now the primary career of the father in law who was in a wheel chair.

·       Lived and worked in the area for a long time but the property was not big enough to meet their needs.

Member Questions to the Applicant

5.      In response to Members questions the Committee were informed that the father would be located in the area called ‘study’ on the plans as it had toilet facilities attached.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       The percentage increase of a property used to be a measure but is no longer policy.

·       Moving the staircase can come under quality of design and thus be a planning consideration.

Debate

7.      Councillor Codling said that the plans did not make it obvious that the extension was subservient. It would be a big house when finished but how subservient should an extension be.

8.      Councillor Wollaston was mindful of allowing planning permission given the family needs and the general appearance would be an upgrade.

9.      Councillor Gaines questioned if the doorways would be able to accommodate a wheelchair ad was informed that this would be a matter for building regulations.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.