Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 19 March 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

Item 47 (2), page 7, point 6. It was noted by the Chairman that ‘there was not requirement’ should read ‘there was no requirement’.

Item 47 (3), page 17, first point: Councillor Julian Swift-Hook requested that ‘perhaps’ should be removed from his statement ‘perhaps by following the example of the Parkway development’.

Item 47 (3), page 17, the resolution: Councillor Swift-Hook felt that the Committee had made a clear decision that Officers should investigate the possibility of Council funding and asked that ‘including investigating funding’ should be added to the resolution.

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.

Councillors David Allen, Jeff Beck, Ieuan Tuck and Julian Swift-Hook declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), 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 (2), 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 Jeff Beck and Garth Simpson reported that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1)

(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).

(Councillors Jeff Beck and Garth Simpson reported that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/03164/OUTD in respect of outline application for construction of two new dwellings and garages. Matters to be considered: Access.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Roger Thompson, Parish Council representative, Mr Chris Scorey - Town and Manor of Hungerford, objector, and Mr Chris Strang, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Isabel Johnson introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was considered unacceptable and Officers recommended it be refused.

Councillor Paul Hewer informed the Committee that the site backed onto the River Dunn and not the Kennet and Avon Canal as stated in the report.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld queried why the Environment Agency had not commented on the question of flooding. Isabel Johnson confirmed that all the usual agencies had been informed and it was not compulsory for them to give a response. Councillor Stansfeld commented that inefficiency did not mean they did not have a view.

Mr Roger Thomspon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Hungerford Town Council did not support this application.

·        The Town Plan was clear regarding the need to protect the Town Boundary and he urged the Committee to uphold the findings of the Officer.

·        It was recognised that the site was included in the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) for potential development. It was therefore considered premature to put forward an application when the boundary was being reconsidered.

·        The Town and Manor of Hungerford opposed the application as the charity defended the boundary of the town and due to the sites proximity to the river; a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

·        James Podger’s view as a near neighbour had some merit as the design was a tasteful extension of the development within the boundary. The Town Council suggested that the application be resubmitted once the new boundary had been agreed.

Mr Chris Scorey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr Scorey was a neighbouring land holder and objected to the development on the grounds of the need to conserve the riverside meadow.

·        There was concern about flooding in the area as his land had flooded in the recent deluge. The River Dunn was managed to allow a flood plain upstream.

·        He concurred with Roger Thompson’s concern regarding the SHLAA and felt the application was premature and would prejudice the plan.

·        It was feared that, if granted, the application would create precedence for developments over the settlement boundary.

Councillor Jeff Beck asked for clarification on flooding in the area. Mr Scorey explained that the Environment Agency had issued warnings, however he was uncertain if the site had been submerged during the recent flooding.

Mr Chris Strang in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        There were examples in other parts of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.(1)

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) 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(2)) concerning Planning Application 13/03234/FUL in respect of the creation of a new secondary access to serve an outbuilding.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Rob Crispin, Parish Council representative, and Mr Chris Strang, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was considered acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

Rob Crispin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Retrospective applications were a cause for concern. It was felt there was no need for a new access.

·        The proposed access was on the apex of the road, which although not a challenge for vehicles leaving the site, was dangerous for traffic progressing westbound.

·        Flooding was an issue on the access road.

·        The inferior turning capability of farm vehicles should be taken into consideration.

·        There was no guarantee that vehicles approaching the access would be travelling at low speeds.

Councillor Jeff Beck asked Mr Crispin to elaborate on the existing building and a potential access gate to the south of the building. Mr Crispin pointed out that there was an existing field gate to the north east of the site and an entrance to the green that could be connected by a path.

Mr Strang in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        The level of use of the proposed access would be too low to substantiate an objection.

·        Visibility was 43m in both directions, which was adequate for vehicles travelling at low speeds.

·        The current flooding on the road was the Council’s responsibility and was not a reason for refusal. The applicant had previously offered to site a soak away on his land if the Council were to provide the pipes, but had received no response.

Councillor Cole queried the need for a new access. Mr Strang explained that ascertaining need was not a material planning consideration, but rather, whether it was safe.

Councillor Roger Hunneman sought clarification regarding the application which had not yet been implemented. Mr Strang noted that the permission was for a classic car garage and was remote from the proposed access.

Councillor George Chandler asked for confirmation that the permission had been for a garage with a home office above. Derek Carnegie confirmed that a Condition applied that it could not be used for residential purposes or by a separate business.

Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor Cole raised the following points:

·        There was concern from residents regarding the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.(2)

(Councillor David Allen, Jeff Beck and Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and in Councillor Allen’s case, the Planning and Highways Committee. Councillors Beck and Allen had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh, however, Councillor 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).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) 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).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 14/00101/FULD in respect of the erection of 3 two storey three bedroomed houses with attached garages.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Debbie Kelly, Mr Terry South, Ms Hannah Cooper and Mr Andy Gove, objector, and Mr Brian Mursell, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie introduced the report to 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 Phil Barnett in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Newbury Town Council was concerned about the blind corner and unhappy with the position of the proposed site on a narrow road.

·        They noted the residents concern regarding access for waste collection vehicles; suggesting that restrictions on parking at certain times to enable access should be put in place.

·        The Willows School playing field would be overlooked as would the existing property on the opposite corner to the proposed site.

·        The Members were concerned that construction and delivery vehicles would obstruct access for existing residents.

·        He recognised that new houses were welcome, but not necessarily if the gap between Newbury and Greenham were to be diminished.

Councillor Hilary Cole asked if the restrictions on parking Newbury Town Council envisaged, would include existing residents. Mr Barnett remarked that the garages offered should be used for vehicles not storage. He asked that the construction traffic access be restricted to appropriate times to prevent impact on existing residents. Councillor Cole inquired if current residents used their garages for their vehicles. Mr Barnett concluded that the Committee could only advise and encourage such use.

Councillor Cole sought clarification as to the concerns regarding the Willows School being overlooked. Mr Barnett commented that the school had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.(3)

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Western Area Planning Committee.

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Western Area.