Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/02147/FUL in respect of a replacement of a fire damaged bungalow at Strawberry Farm, Aldermaston.

2.    Mr Butler 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.    The Chairman asked Mr Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard explained that as it was an existing access the highways department had no objections to the application.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Steve Cottrell, agent and Councillor Dominic Boeck, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

Mr Cottrell addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=6004

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       After the fire, the fire brigade’s advice was to demolish the property for safety reasons.

Ward Member Representation

6.    Councillor Boeck addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=6390

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.    Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Irrespective of the timeline planning officers considered the property to be abandoned.

·       The relevant planning policy considered a property abandoned if there was no property there at the time of application.

·       There was an existing appeal that could be affected by the outcome of this application. This was at Brimpton Common.

·       Evacuation numbers in the DEPZ were assessed every year with all changes considered.

Debate

9.    Councillor Pemberton opened the debate by expressing he was uncomfortable with the fact a house could burn down in the DEPZ without the right to rebuild. The Councillor also sympathised with the economic situation of the appellant.

10. Councillor Somner shared Councillor Pemberton’s concerns and pointed out that the property had not burnt down until mid-way through the legal process of the purchase, which was why the Councillor wanted to have a timeline of events. The Councillor highlighted that residents in similar properties would become concerned that they could not rebuild their homes in similar circumstances.

11. Councillor Poole implored the Committee to judge the application on its own merits and expressed discontent over the situation. The Councillor called for the need for ‘absolutes’ to make a formal decision in this case.

12. Councillor Kander was concerned by the fact that the house occupation had been removed from the AWE emergency plan list and explained that numbers involved in the resident population were uncertain.

13. Councillor Taylor was keen to hear people’s ideas on the matter expressing it was not a straightforward case.

14. Councillor Pemberton proposed to refer the decision to the District Planning Committee this was seconded by Councillor Somner.

15. Councillor Somner queried whether the decision could be deferred until after the appeal and Mr Till advised against this as it could push the decision back for multiple months.

16. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Pemberton, seconded by Councillor Somner to defer the decision to the District Planning Committee. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED: that the decision be referred to the District Planning Committee.