Agenda item

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/01755/FUL in respect of a part retrospective change of use of land to mixed ancillary residential use with agricultural use, remodelling of land levels and rebuild of stables to an agricultural store.

2.     Mr Michael Butler, Principal Planning Officer, 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, Highways Development Control Team Leader if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard advised that Highways Officers had no objections to this application as the number of vehicle movements that would be generated from this application would be low as it was the expectation that the site would only be accessed by the applicant.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Julie Cooper, objector, Mr Gareth Jones, agent, and Councillor Martha Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

5.     Ms Cooper addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·         Ms Cooper confirmed that she would like screening in place between her own property (Sandymead House) and the application property.

·         A gate was in place between the properties as Ms Cooper had access rights to the neighbouring land.

·         Ms Cooper advised that she provided care for disabled people through the West Berkshire Council Shared Lives scheme. This included the provision of day care, respite and having a resident living with her on a full time basis.

Agent Representation

7.     Mr Jones addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November 2024

Member Questions to the Agent

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

·         Mr Jones confirmed that the applicant was willing to put additional screening in place between Twistle Cottage and the neighbouring dwelling.

·         The ancillary area referred to was the applicant’s garden area and constituted an expansion of the curtilage.

·         The machinery to be stored would not be significant, i.e. a sit on lawnmower for when the development, if approved, had concluded.

·         Mr Jones explained that the hours of work proposed as part of the Construction Method Statement would be conditioned. This was a matter that could be debated.

·         Ground levelling/earth moving works would take place as part of the development phase.

Ward Member Representation

9.     Councillor Martha Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November 2024

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:

·         It was standard best practice for the red line to cover the access from the application site to the public highway.

·         It was understood that there was a legal right of access/right of way for the neighbouring resident to access land owned by the applicant.

·         The addition of screening could be added as a condition in order to avoid overlooking of the neighbouring property. The form this would take to be in keeping with the area was a matter for the Committee to consider.

·         The current land use of the neighbouring dwelling could change in future and this was another point to take into account.

·         Overlooking was a planning issue. Sensitivities relating to the existing neighbour/neighbouring residents was not a planning matter.

·         The production of a Construction Method Statement was a condition of approval.

·         It was acknowledged that the sight lines on exiting the site were limited. However, the number of vehicle movements would be very low and Highways Officers therefore recommended approval.

·         There were some exemptions to biodiversity net gain with this proposal which related to the retrospective element of the application. However, a 10.2% biodiversity net gain was proposed and this was a condition of approval. The applicant had voluntarily applied this level of biodiversity net gain against the application.

·         A planning permission did not override covenants. The development of a site with planning consent could be delayed if there were civil matters to be addressed in relation to a covenant.

·         The concerns that had been raised in relation to the wellbeing of residents of Sandymead House had been considered. It was not referenced within the report due to data protection restrictions.

·         The distances between Twistle Cottage and Sandymead House was 52m (back to back). This was in excess of the required 21m. A level of screening was provided by a conifer hedge.

Debate

12.  Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by referring to the planning/design statement produced by the applicant. This suggested that additional screening could be included as a condition. He felt this would be desirable if Members were minded to approve the application.

13.  Councillor Antony Amirtharaj felt it had been useful to gain a wider understanding of the ancillary aspect of the application. It had also been important to consider the impact on the wellbeing of neighbouring residents. He was supportive of the application subject to conditions and an additional condition for screening.

14.  Councillor Paul Dick proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report, and an additional condition for screening that was in keeping with the area and acceptable both to the applicant and to neighbours.

15.  Councillor Clive Hooker stated that his concerns had been addressed and seconded the proposal. He did however question if the existing concrete wall could be softened in some way.

16.  Debra Inston, Development Control Team Manager, explained that the screening condition would be worded to ensure that it was both suitable and in keeping with the area.

17.  The potential to shorten the hours of work included as part of the Construction Method Statement was queried in order to lessen the impact on neighbouring residents. Ms Inston recommended that the hours of work remain unchanged as these were standard working hours acceptable to Environmental Health Officers. Ms Inston did not feel it would be reasonable to seek to adjust these as there were not exceptional circumstances on which to do so. This was accepted by Members.

18.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Dick, seconded by Councillor Hooker, 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 listed in the main report and update report, and an additional condition for screening on the south-east boundary of the application site.