To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Team 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 August 2024.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 August 2024 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

2.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Nigel Foot declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a local ward member. Also, he was a Member of the Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee on Newbury Town Council which had considered this application, but he indicated that he would consider the application afresh. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Phil Barnett declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee, which had considered this application, but he indicated that he had not attended the meeting where this application had been discussed. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Clive Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a local ward member. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Antony Amirtharaj declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a local ward member. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Nigel Foot declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).

Councillor Cliver Hooker declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

 

 

3.

Schedule of Planning Applications

(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).

3.(1)

Application No. and Parish: 24/00348/FUL Cold Ash pdf icon PDF 415 KB

Proposal:

Erection of 6 dwellings with associated access, car parking and landscaping.

Location:

Coley Farm, Stoney Lane, Ashmore Green, Thatcham

Applicant:

Cala Homes Chiltern Ltd

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Development Manager to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed in the report.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/00348/FUL in respect of the erection of 6 dwellings with associated access, car parking and landscaping at Coley Farm, Stoney Lane, Ashmore Green, Thatcham.

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.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard indicated that he was content with the proposed layout and while there was a slight shortfall in parking spaces, it was not enough to warrant an objection. He confirmed that cycle parking and electric vehicle charge points would be provided. Also, the predicted 18 additional traffic movements was a small number. Overall, Highways Officers had no objections.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Vikki Row applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant Representation

5.      Ms Row addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant

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

·       The applicant indicated that the timescale for development of the estate would be extended slightly if this application was approved.

·       Clarification was provided that although there had been no objections from statutory technical consultees, there had been objections from Cold Ash Parish Council and Newbury Town Council.

·       It was confirmed that alternative uses of the site had not been considered – the applicant was a housebuilder, so it was logical for them to build additional homes.

·       Assurances were given that silt build-up in the attenuation ponds was being actively monitored and action would be taken as necessary to clear this.

Ward Member Representation

7.      Councillor Stuart Gourley addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

8.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

9.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Removal of the pumping station was seen as a positive outcome, since they were more prone to failure than gravity sewers. Removal of the rising main would reduce the risk of foul water flooding on the site and associated contamination of the nearby watercourse. The Council had little authority to refuse such as change, if Thames Water was willing to accept it.

·       Hydraulic calculations had been submitted and checks showed that there would be no increase in flood risk. SuDS had been requested primarily for amenity and biodiversity benefits. The most severe recent rainfall event on the site had been 1:10 years. While a variation in the freeboard had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

3.(2)

Application No. and Parish: 24/01467/HOUSE & 24/01541/LBC Leckhampstead pdf icon PDF 357 KB

Proposal:

Two storey rear extension to create two en-suite bathrooms with internal alterations. Relocation of existing oil boiler and increase in chimney height

Location:

Catslide Cottage, Hill Green, Leckhampstead, Newbury, RG20 8RB

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs Taylor

Recommendation:

Refusal

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Applications 24/01467/HOUSE & 24/01541/LBC in respect of a two storey rear extension to create two en-suite bathrooms with internal alterations, relocation of existing oil boiler and increase in chimney height, at Catslide Cottage, Hill Green, Leckhampstead, Newbury, RG20 8RB.

2.      Ms Harriet Allen 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.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Cis Taylor, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

4.      Mrs Taylor addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

6.      Councillor Clive Hooker addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The previous approval application for a one-storey extension had originally been submitted as a two-storey extension. The Conservation Officer’s comments had applied to the original application for the two-storey extension, so could also be taken to apply to this application.

·       The 1990s extension had increased the floorspace of the building by 6%, while the current proposal would increase the floorspace by 27% from the original. It was acknowledged that the catslide roof distorted the appearance of the property.

·       It was confirmed that part of the catslide roof would remain if the proposed extension was built. However, the Conservation Officer had been concerned that the original 18th century catslide roof would mostly be lost. The Conservation Officer had also been concerned about the loss of the historic fabric of the building, the further erosion of the historic plan form, the obscuring of the house from that elevation, and the blurring of the distinction with the original house. It was suggested that these aspects were relevant to the listed building consent.

·       The planning application considered wider issues such as the views from the public rights of way. However, Officers indicated that the public footpath was a considerable distance away, so views of the property were limited.

·       The Conservation Officer’s assessment had been that the proposed development would largely remove the original catslide roof from the appearance of the cottage.

Debate

9.      Councillor Howard Woolaston opened the debate. He did not feel that the proposed development would have a fundamental effect on the building. He was also swayed by the needs of the family. He indicated that he was minded to go against the Officer’s recommendations.

10.   Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

3.(3)

Application No. and Parish: 24/00925/FUL Newbury pdf icon PDF 374 KB

Proposal:

Construction of single storey restaurant building using shipping containers. Renovation and fit out of existing brick storage barn to form new barn and seating area. External landscaping to form pub garden/seating area.

Location:

Cross Keys, 8 London Road, Newbury, RG14 1JX

Applicant:

Mr James Callery

Recommendation:

Approval

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 24/00925/FUL in respect of the construction of single storey restaurant building using shipping containers, renovation and fit out of existing brick storage barn to form new barn and seating area, and external landscaping to form pub garden/seating area, at Cross Keys, 8 London Road, Newbury.

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 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. He highlighted that the proposed seating area would result in the loss of the pub’s car park, but there was sufficient parking in nearby public car parks particularly given that peak parking demand for the pub would be in the evenings, when demand for town centre car parking was low. He confirmed that Highways had no objection to the proposal

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Cheeseman and Ms Helen Spriggs, objectors addressed the Committee on this application.

Objectors Representation

5.      Ms Spriggs addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

6.      Mr Cheeseman addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

7.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

8.      Councillor Antony Amirtharaj addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

9.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

10.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       A light assessment had been carried out on Ms Spriggs’ property in accordance with BRE guidance. Although this had shown there would be a 25% loss of light, this was considered adequate and there would still be ample light from above.

·       Members noted that the site was within a town centre location, so a degree of activity was to be expected. Officers had been guided by Environmental Health colleagues, who were satisfied with the proposal. Also, they had confirmed that licensing arrangements could control how the site was managed, and they were confident that they could respond to any issues that arose.

·       It was confirmed that the wood-burner flue was over 6m from the neighbouring property, and it was pointed towards the car park. It was suggested that the wood-burner would not be used in the summer months when windows were more likely to be open. The Environmental Health Team considered significant adverse impacts from the wood-burner to be unlikely, but they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)