Agenda item

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/016/FULMAJ in respect of Demolition of existing pub and reconstruction of 18 new flats with reception facilities for young people with autism and learning disabilities (falling within class c3 residential use) and alterations of existing B and B facilities into 2 no. of flats for young people with autism and learning disabilities (falling within class c3 residential (b) use) and alterations to existing shop and café to include alterations to windows and doors.

2.       Mr Simon Till (Development Control Team Leader) 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 completion of a s106 obligation and to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports. It was highlighted that a revised recommendation had been included in the additional update information as follows: The officers recommendation is for conditional approval, subject to the conditions in the agenda report, the update sheet and additional update sheet; completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the use of the site; and to it being delegated back to officers to liaise with the applicant to secure appropriate drainage via additional information and conditions.

3.       Mr Gareth Dowding (Principal Engineer (Traffic and Road Safety)) confirmed that he had no further comments in relation to Highways Matters.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Watts Town Council representative, Mr Warren Richard, Mr Edward Sellick and Ms Rosie Palin, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.       Ms Watts (Thatcham Town Council) addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link)

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

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

·       The representation as on behalf of Thatcham Town Council, which had discussed the application at a meeting of its planning committee.

Applicant Representation

7.       Rosie Palin addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link):

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       It was confirmed that the existing shop would be retained on site as it currently was. 

Ward Member Representation

9.       Councillor Owen Jeffery addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link)

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       In response to the possibility of revisiting the matter of lowering speed limits and if this would be feasible, it was confirmed that for a speed limit review to take place, the Ward Member or Town Council would need to apply through a separate speed limit review process.

·       Permitted Development rights in relation to C3 use were limited. However, if Members felt that a condition restricting permitted development was necessary this could be considered. Concern was raised that permitted development rights for C3 use fell under general residential rather than a care home and in essence, by restricting to the current use it was thought that any permitted development rights would fall away.

·       As noted in the Officer’s report, the site location was not deemed sustainable for the proposed development. Normally Officers would expect such a development to be sited in accordance with Local Plan Policy however, there was a user demographic that had to be taken into consideration. Officers were not able to answer if any of the users would be drivers however, it was expected that they most likely would not. In terms of the particular application, Officers considered the lack of sustainability of the location provided some benefit.. The balance was weighed positively in favour of specific areas of need.

·       It was confirmed that condition six referred to foul drainage, which was a separate matter to surface water drainage. Under normal circumstances it was confirmed that there would normally be a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) condition. Officers were still waiting on this information and had therefore asked for this to be delegated back to Officer’s so that the necessary discussions could take place with the applicant, to secure the required information and to ensure the drainage system was sustainable.

Members voted in favour to suspend standing orders so that the applicant could be asked to provide details regarding the users of the proposed site. 

·       Warren Davies (applicant) from the Care Quality Commission for Transforming Support confirmed that the individuals that lived within the type of service proposed would not ordinarily be drivers. They would likely have dedicated mobility cars driven by support staff and have access to specialist transport from the Care Quality Commission or the Local Authority.

Members voted in favour of reinstating standing orders.

Debate

12.   Councillor Jeremy Cottam firstly commented on the sadness of the loss of the Travellers Friend, which had once been a much loved Inn. He however, felt that the proposal was excellent in terms of the benefit it would provide. He was aware of the poor internal condition of the pub and when viewed at the site visit, the condition had worsened further. The justification of going to a new build was an excellent idea and the proposal was well presented and fit for purpose. Councillor Cottam referred to comments and answers provided regarding the sustainability of the site and felt reassured that it was for the benefit of the residents.  

13.   Councillor Somner agreed with Councillor Cottam. The site had been visited previously and the out of the way location had been noted. It was a sad situation in current times that if a pub was not used it was lost. Councillor Somner was mindful of the conditions and the change in terms of drainage engineer’s view (detailed in the additional update report), which need to be factored in. Councillor Somner proposed the Officer recommendation be approved with the inclusion of the recommended changes.

14.   The Chairman clarified that the additional conditions for inclusion concerned the footpath and residential permitted development rights. Councillor Somner agreed with these conditions and felt that a condition of permitted development rights would offer some reassurance to those living in the area. Councillor Cottam seconded the proposal.

15.   Councillor Pemberton queried if the SuDs precondition would also be included. Mr Till confirmed the revised recommendation proposed that this matter being delegated back to officers to liaise with the applicant to secure appropriate drainage via additional information and conditions.  Mr Till clarified the further condition for inclusion, which had been requested by Members to restrict all residential permitted development rights and confirmed that a condition regarding the footpath was included within the update sheet.

16.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner, seconded by Councillor Cottam to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the agenda report, the update sheet , additional update sheet and additional condition regarding permitted development rights detailed below; completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the use of the site; and to it being delegated back to officers to liaise with the applicant to secure appropriate drainage via additional information and conditions.

Permitted Development Rights

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no extensions, alterations, buildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C and/or E of that Order shall be carried out, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason:   To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (June 2006)