Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/01916/HOUSE in respect of the erection of a single timber shed to the western side of a property in Cold Ash.

2.    Mr Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. The report detailed that the proposal was satisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Heather Codling, Parish/Town Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.    Councillor Codling in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposal contradicted the original development plan in regard to properties blocking views of the Ridge.

·         There was frustration amongst Parish Councillors that conditions placed on development plans were being overturned.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.    Members asked questions of the Parish Council and received the following response:

·         An unacceptable fence would be one that blocked the view.

Ward Member Representation

6.    Councillor Clive Hooker, reading a statement on behalf of Councillor Paul Dick, raised the following point:

·         The recent development was granted with considerable restrictions and these restrictions should be observed.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.    Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·         The layout of the fence that was approved appeared to be different from what had been erected. It was advised that whilst the proposal should be considered in isolation the location of the fence was material as the location in which it had been built partially obscured the location of the proposed shed. However, the fence would still be approved in this location.

·         General amenity allowed for permitted development rights of up to 1.8m, in this case the Inspector restricted all permitted development rights in relation to the means of enclosure and outbuildings due to the visual sensitivity of the location.

·         The Committee were shown images illustrating how previous developments had obstructed views in the area.

·         Mr Till advised he was not the case officer on this application so had limited background knowledge and as a result could not comment on whether two sheds would have been approved. It was stated however that this was not relevant to the proposal in front of the Committee.

·         Considerations as to how the plans related to the visual impact on the area were material to this planning application and Members should make their determination on that basis.

Debate

9.    Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by stating that upon visiting the site he did not feel as though views of the Ridge would be affected by the proposal at all due to the ground dropping away. Councillor Vickers advised that he had originally opposed the proposal to build the dwelling but saw no reason to reject this proposal.

10.Councillor Howard Woollaston advised that when visiting the site, he was impressed with what had been built.

11.Councillor Phil Barnett stated that he agreed with Councillor Vickers sentiments and was supportive of the proposal.

12.Councillor Codling informed the Committee that she did not have strong views either way. She argued people’s frustrations were centred around the fact that the distance could not be seen as clearly due to developments. She stated that she sympathised with the Parish Council and queried where this could lead to. She stated that there was the potential to lose the integrity of the approved plans further down the line if other homeowners wanted to undertake similar developments.

13.Councillor Hooker highlighted that when plans previously came through to Committee there were several challenges that had to be overcome and that permitted development rights were removed. He shared Councillor Codling’s concern that this could create an issue of precedent.

14.Councillor Antony Amirtharaj stated that the concerns of the Parish Council must be taken into account. He queried whether a precedent was being set of accepting applications on account of technicalities and ignoring the concerns of parish council members. He confirmed that he had been to the site, and he did not see any issue with the visual impact, but that he was torn between what was being proposed within the legal limits and ensuring residents’ views were considered.

15.Councillor Dennis Benneyworth argued that on balance the proposal had to be accepted.

16.Councillor Benneyworth proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers.

17.The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Benneyworth, seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions.