Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) 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(3)) concerning Planning Application 14/01391/COMIND in respect of an extension to south of Village Hall for additional pre school facility.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mike Belcher, Parish Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie introduced the report to the 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.

Mike Belcher in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He wanted to make it clear that the Parish Council was supportive of the pre-schools aspirations, however, they objected to the store-room and the play area that abutted the road on an elevated bank.

·         The building was currently long and linear in design and, if approved, the proposal would extend it by a further 12m. There would be a loss of natural light as three of the six windows would be blocked for the store-room.

·         The Councillors believed that there were alternative options, for example, abutting the north east face of the building, that would overcome these objections.

·         There had been little consultation with residents or the Parish Council as the plans were only revealed at the Village Hall AGM. They would like to see a revision of the plans and rigorous public consultation with consideration given to other options.

Councillor Hilary Cole noted that there had been little public consultation and inquired if the pre-school had approached the Parish Council. Mr Belcher confirmed that they had not been approached. Councillor Julian Swift-Hook opined that the Parish Council could have invited the applicants to present to them rather than waiting to be approached. Mr Belcher explained that the application had only been brought to their attention three weeks prior to that evening. Councillor Cole concluded that the first ten minutes of a Parish Council meetings were open for presentations, but neither the pre-school nor the architect had used the opportunity.

The Chairman noted that it was not a material planning consideration as to whether there had been sufficient consultation, but whether this was an acceptable proposal.

Councillor Cole, speaking as Ward Member, addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         It was disappointing that the applicant or agent were not present for this discussion.

·         She was generally supportive of the aims of the Chieveley Recreational centre and had been Chairman for many years; overseeing the refurbishment in 2004.

·         There had been considerable extensions to the north already. Her primary concerns were the elongated nature of the building and the impact on the street scene.

·         When exiting the village the new housing development had been designed to give an open, rural feel to the area. The proposed site would be dominating and enclose the space through its elevated position and closeness to the boundary.

Councillor Jeff Beck commented that on the site visit he had listened to local people and after reading the written objection from the Parish Council, he felt that this was not a proposal he could accept. The building would destroy the open aspect and to put a play area next to a highway with a chicane was ridiculous.

Councillor Beck proposed to reject Officer recommendation and refuse planning permission for reasons of the negative impact on the street scene and the character of the area. This was seconded by Councillor Cole.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld concluded that it was an ugly design that did not respect the quality and character of the landscape.

Councillor Garth Simpson noted that it was not the Members responsibility to judge the architectural merit of the design, however he was concerned at the positioning of the increased car parking space. Derek Carnegie noted that the Highways Officer had no objection on this matter.

The Chairman stated that as the site was in an AONB, architecture might be seen a material consideration.

Councillor Julian Swift-Hook observed that the design of the current building was not outstanding and that the proposed design would not make it better or worse. He felt that the consultation could have been done more effectively.

Councillor von Celsing proposed to reject Officer recommendation and refuse planning permission on reasons of detrimental impact on street scene and character of the area. This was seconded by Councillor Beck.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote and the proposal to reject Officer recommendation and refuse planning permission was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countrysidebe authorised to REFUSE conditional planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal:

Impact on street scene

Impact on character of the area