Agenda item

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

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

7.      The site was large and there was space to move the construction which would minimise its impact.

8.      The Committee were informed that just today with the bad weather there had been water runoff into her driveway and that this was not an isolated instance.

Ward Member Representation

9.      Councillor Howard Woollaston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The applicant was a well-respected employer.

·       This committee did not like retrospective applications, also the structure could have been located at a better position on the site.

·       As winter approached the visual impact would become more apparent.

·       He recommended either refusal of the application or amendments to the recommendation.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

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

·       He had not had a discussion with the applicant about the possibility of moving the construction to an alternative location on site.

·       Replacing the dying trees with new trees would be beneficial in screening the site.

·       The site was large enough to move the structures to another position.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       The structures were below the exiting tree line, was within existing boundaries, had limited impact from the public footpath and had limited impact on the AONB.

·       There was no impact on the quality of life of the surrounding area.

·       The ground was an existing gravel site.

·       Although the structures could be moved the application was for a permanent fixture.

·       The neighbouring property may have flooding in bad weather prior to the construction on the site. 

·       Officers did not consider the proposed location as harmful therefore there had been no discussion about alternative locations on site.

·       The tree officer had not indicated that there was any evidence that the structure had contributed to the death if trees.

·       There was a standard condition regarding to SUDS.

Debate

12.   The Chairman opened the debate by reminding members that although the Committee did not like retrospective planning applications they needed to focus on the application before them.

13.   Councillor Codling mentioned that he had been on the site visit and understood the objector’s concerns. He was not convinced that the structure should be moved as it was in the logical position on the site.  He recommended that if it was possible that there should be a condition that the colour of the structure should remain as it was and that appropriate trees should be planted to provide year-round coverage.

14.   Councillor Gaines said that as a substitute she visited the site today and could see the containers through the gates.  She approved the possible condition of having evergreen trees.

15.   Councillor Culver said that given how high the structure was she was concerned how any new tree planted as part of a condition would take to grow.  She was also concerned about water run off and flooding.

16.   Councillor Wollaston suggested that if approved a condition should be added about maintaining tree coverage.

17.   Councillor Woollaston proposed refusal of officer recommendations and was seconded by Councillor Culver.

The Motion was put to the vote and rejected. 

18.   Councillor Codling proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report with the addition of tree screening to be supplied within three months and the decision delegated to the tree officer and that the colour of the structures should remain green to reduce the impact on amenities. This was seconded by Councillor Gaines.

19.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Codling, seconded by Councillor Gaines to grant retrospective planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development Control Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Informatives

The Chairman mentioned that the problems with traffic in and around Membury did need to be looked at.