Eastern Area Planning Committee 01/11/06 Minutes

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1 NOVEMBER 2006 AT THE CALCOT CENTRE, CALCOT

Committee: Irene Neill (Chairman) (P), Peter Argyle (P), Pamela Bale (P), Keith Chopping (P), John Farrin (P), Royce Longton (P), Alan Macro (P), Sheila Ellison (Vice-Chairman) (P), Joe Mooney (P), Graham Pask (AP), Terry Port (P), Paul Pritchard (P), Quentin Webb (SP) Ward Members also in attendance: Councillor Tim Metcalfe Also present: Sara Appleton, Jessica Collett, Gareth Dowding, Ashley Heath, David Pearson, Linda Pye PART I 78. APOLOGIES. An Apology for inability to attend the meeting was received on behalf of Councillor Graham Pask. Councillor Quentin Webb substituted for Councillor Graham Pask. 79. MINUTES. The Minutes of the special meeting held on 27th September 2006 and the meeting on 11th October 2006 were both approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman. 80. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. Councillors Royce Longton and John Farrin declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), and reported that, as their interest was personal and prejudicial, they would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter. Councillor Pamela Bale declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as her interest was personal and not prejudicial, she was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. 81. APPLICATION NO. 06/02030/FUL – MAPLEDURHAM LOCK, MAPLEDURHAM DRIVE, PURLEY ON THAMES. (Councillor John Farrin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that his mother-in-law was a resident of Wintringham Way. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter). (Councillor Royce Longton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was Chairman of the Thames River Association. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter). (Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that her husband was a boat owner and they used the river in question. She was also acquainted with the objectors. As her interest was EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES personal and not prejudicial she was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 06/02030/FUL in respect of the provision of sanitary facilities for boat users. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Rick Jones, Parish Council representative, Mr. Steve Young, objector, Mr. Neil Blake, supporter, and Mr. Paul Power, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr. Rick Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  The Parish Council raised objections to the application and there was also a considerable degree of opposition from residents in the village to the proposal;  Mapledurham Lock was situated in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on an attractive part of the River Thames and the Parish Council felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the AONB;  The current application was similar to a previous application and Mr. Jones did not feel that it had been modified sufficiently to warrant approval;  No effort had been made to screen or soften the impact of the sanitary compound;  Existing waste was collected by barge and the Parish Council felt that waste should continue to be collected this way rather than by large tankers using an inappropriate access road;  Since the last application was dismissed at Appeal in October 1990 the number of boats using the river had declined and therefore there was less justification now for improving the sanitary facilities nor any reason given for why the existing facilities at Whitchurch Lock could not be upgraded;  Mr. Jones queried why the Environment Agency had waited 16 years before submitting a further application if there was such an urgent need for such facilities on the site;  In comparison the pedestrian traffic along the towpath had increased considerably and the Thames Path was currently being enhanced to encourage more pedestrians to use it;  The proposed sanitary facilities would interfere with pedestrian traffic along the towpath;  Visitors to the area liked the visual setting of the lock;  The Environment Agency had not put forward a good case for moving the existing facility from Whitchurch Lock;  The Purley area was at risk from flooding and the Parish Council had concerns about raw sewage contaminating the flood water as a result of spillage;  The Environment Agency had recently submitted three applications on this site and the Parish Council had supported two of those applications but urged the Committee to refuse this application. Mr. Young in addressing the Committee raised the following points: EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

 Mr. Young felt that Mapledurham Lock was in a beautiful location and this opinion was endorsed by the Ramblers’ Association;  The pattern of usage of the river had changed since the last application in 1990 and was now a popular location for walkers and foot traffic had increases substantially;  Mr. Young had concerns that odours from the sanitary compound and occasional spillage would discourage the use of the lock by walkers;  This proposal was the same as the previous application apart from a slight change in the architecture of the compound and Mr. Young felt that there were more suitable sites for such a facility;  Mr. Young felt that the Environment Agency had not adequately considered the alternative options and although the current proposal for Mapledurham Lock might be the most cost effective option it was also the option that would have the most detrimental effect;  Whitchurch Lock should be redeveloped and upgraded as there was already an existing facility in the area;  Local residents felt strongly that this beautiful location should not be spoilt by the proposed development;  Mr. Young reported that the local residents, boaters and walkers who used the area were opposed to the proposals and urged the Committee to reject the application. Mr. Blake in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  Mr. Blake stated that he was Secretary of the Association of Thames Yacht Club, a member of the River Users Group and was also a boater;  Mr. Blake supported the proposal as he felt that sanitary facilities were needed on the site and therefore supported the principle;  Molesey and Shepperton Locks had similar facilities and these did not emit offensive odours;  At Sheperton Lock the facilities were an integral part of the lock area and were adjacent to the public footpath whereas the facilities at the Molesey Lock were separate;  Mr. Blake felt that there was definitely a lack of pump out facilities at the Reading end of the River Thames;  Various user groups had been widely consulted on the proposed amenities. Mr. Power in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  Mr. Power stated that there was a gap for sanitation facilities in the river network between Abingdon and Shiplake;  The existing commercial facilities at Reading were not suitable for the proposed use;  The Environment Agency had a statutory responsibility to provide facilities for boat users; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

 Mr. Power reported that the Environment Agency had considered eight alternative sites but these had fallen down on technical or boat management grounds;  The layout of the facilities had been designed to cause the least possible impact on the area;  Mr. Power quoted other locks which had the same or similar facilities and all had their own characteristics which attracted visitors. However, there were no complaints in respect of public health issues, smells or infestation by flies etc. Some of these were situated directly by the Thames Pathway;  Environmental Impact Assessments were undertaken on all projects proposed by the Environment Agency and a green light had been given on this proposal;  Consultation had taken place with English Nature and they had raised no objections. An independent landscape architect had also taken the view that the facility would not have an impact on the AONB;  Mr. Power agreed that the collection of sewage was an issue but the Environment Agency had very good safety records in respect of access to and operation of sites;  The size of vehicle used would depend on the suitability of the access route into the site but collections would only need to be made once or twice a week during the main boating season;  Mr. Power thanked the Parish Council and residents of Purley for their co- operation;  Finally, Mr. Power stated that the Environment Agency would be prepared to work flexibly with the Council in respect of the construction, siting and impact of the proposed facility. Members noted that the existing waste at Whitchurch Lock was removed by barge and wondered whether it would be feasible to collect waste in that way rather than by using tankers. Mr. Power stated that the Environment Agency’s preference was to collect by tanker but that this could be supplemented by the sanitation barge. Members asked for clarification on why the sanitation facilities had to be located by the lock and why they could not be located further along the river on the embankment. Mr. Power reiterated that the Environment Agency did not feel that the facilities would harm the enjoyment of the lock. The lock environment was a man-made feature itself and had a lock keeper on site. It was therefore preferable for operation management and vandalism control to site the facilities adjacent to the lock rather than in remote areas. Members agreed that improvements needed to be made at Whitchurch Lock but queried whether pump out and ‘elsan’ facilities were required at Mapledurham and whether there was sufficient demand. Mr. Power confirmed that the Environment Agency did have statistics on boat movement. A Waterway Plan had also been produced which had identified this area as lacking in facilities. The Environment Agency had Codes of Practice and standards to which they had to work to and sanitation facilities were required every few hours or so along the river. Boats had waste tanks of varying sizes ranging from 30 to 100 gallons and some boats would therefore need to pump out more frequently than others. It would be possible to improve the facilities at Whitchurch Lock but that that would cause a bottleneck as the lock was smaller and narrower than that at EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

Mapledurham. Mr. Power stated that they would have built a sanitation facility at Whitchurch Lock by now if that would have been feasible. It was queried why new facilities were required if there was a decrease in boat usage. Mr. Power acknowledged that there had been a decline in boating until recently but now the trend was increasing and the new boat market was booming. Narrow boats were also becoming more popular. The increase in registration charges might also have a negative impact on the sale of boats which would mean that the value would drop and they would become more affordable. The Environment Agency was keen to increase the use of the river and improve facilities. Members queried the sanitation arrangements as it was felt that most lock keepers would not allow boat owners to carry ‘elsan’ containers. Mr. Power stated that at most sites boat owners would have to cross the towpath to empty the ‘elsan’ containers but that byelaws were in place to protect the environment of the lock chamber. Members asked for clarification on whether the ‘elsan’ cubicle could be located further into the ground. Mr. Power confirmed that the Environment Agency would be willing to consider that if it was technically possible. Councillor Tim Metcalfe, as Ward Member, noted the high level of objection and concern from local residents in respect of the proposed development. He stated that he did have a personal interest in the application as his farm adjoined the application site on the south side. It had been previously stated that this was an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but no mention had been made that the site was a wildlife heritage site and it was therefore surprising that no response had been received from English Nature. Councillor Metcalfe was also surprised that no objections had been raised by Highways as he felt that the access road was not suitable for tankers. He was not convinced that new sanitation facilities were required at all and he hoped that the Committee would refuse the application as he felt that the proposal would cause degradation of the rural environment and raised huge health issues. He doubted if the facility was needed but if it was why not locate it on the island next to the lock, connect to mains or use the water power over the lock to power the facility. The Chairman also read out comments received from Councillor John Chapman who was the other Ward Member for the area. He also felt that the facility was not needed and would be a health hazard. He considered that the Inspector’s decision on the previous application had strengthened with time. Councillor Chapman also felt that the number of walkers would increase substantially over the coming years. In response to comments received the Planning Officer clarified that the Council was not saying that the Inspector’s decision of 1990 had no bearing on this application. Paragraphs 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of the Officer’s report addressed the planning history of the site and the weight that could be attached to the Inspector’s findings. In 1990 there was no policy framework in place for the promotion of recreational uses. However, there were now Government guidance and Local Plan policies in place to support recreational needs and some which specifically deal with river corridors. The Planning Officer stated that the pump out facility would be small and therefore there would be minimal visual impact. The other unit would be surrounded by a fence which would be the same size as the existing fence around the site and therefore would not be visible which would mean that it need not be placed into the ground. The Inspector did accept in 1990 that there was a need for the facility and therefore that need could not be disputed. English Nature had been invited to comment but had chosen not to and EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

the Council’s Ecology Officer had looked at the proposal and raised no objections. BBOWT had also been consulted and had not objected. In considering the above application Members felt that Mapledurham Lock was a beautiful landmark and site and had concerns in respect of tankers using the access road. Whilst recognising that such facilities were important to boat users Members were uncertain as to whether the facility was actually needed on this site as the applicant had agreed that the existing facilities at Whitchurch Lock could be upgraded. The Planning Officer advised that if Members were considering refusal of the application on visual impact grounds it would be necessary to demonstrate to the Planning Inspector that the proposal would be harmful on the visual amenity of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This would be difficult to demonstrate at appeal as the facilities would have very little visual impact. The Planning Officer felt that the enjoyment of the Thames Path was an issue which could be defended at appeal as there could be a conflict with people using the towpath and people using the facility which might raise amenity issues. He did raise concerns in respect of refusal of the application on highway grounds as the Highway’s Officer had not raised any objections to the proposal. Some Members felt that too much emphasis was being placed on the Planning Inspector’s decision in 1990 and that the situation had since moved on. Boat owners needed and expected appropriate facilities when using the river and felt that if the application were to be approved a condition should be imposed to ensure that the waste was removed by sanitation barge rather than via tanker. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be delegated to refuse permission for the following reason: 1. The site is located in a prominent and sensitive location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the use of the facilities would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of pedestrian visitors to the lock and users of the Thames Long Distance Footpath. 82. APPLICATION NO. 06/02055/HOUSE – 14 THE AVENUE, MORTIMER COMMON. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 06/02055/HOUSE in respect of the provision of a two storey rear extension containing 3 bedrooms, dining and drawing room. Single storey detached garage to the rear. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Morden, Parish Council representative, Mrs. Winter and Mrs. Walbourn, objectors, and Mr. Jan Ratip, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr. Morden in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  The proposed extension would nearly double the footprint of the existing dwelling and was therefore an overdevelopment of the property;  The Planning Officer stated that amended plans had been received which removed the balcony element of the scheme but as they had not been received within the statutory guidelines therefore the application as submitted should be considered by the Committee; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

 The first floor rear balcony would be 3m x 4m and the Parish Council felt that it was intended for use as an outdoor sitting area;  The balcony would create overlooking and loss of amenity to adjoining properties;  One of the adjoining properties was a bungalow and the proposed development would cast a shadow over that property and would be highly visible from the street;  The proposal would adversely affect the street scene from the north. Mrs. Winter and Mrs. Walbourn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  Mrs. Walbourn lived at No.12 The Avenue with her brother who was disabled;  An increase of 84% in the footprint would dominate her bungalow and would take light away from the rear garden;  Two proposed new side windows on the ground floor would overlook Mrs. Walbourn’s property;  Construction of the garage could cause damage to the roots of the hedge;  No. 14 The Avenue had a small frontage with limited parking and she felt that cars would park on the road;  If approval were to be granted it would change the character of the area;  Mrs. Walbourn asked that if the application were to be approved then there should be a restriction on bank holiday and weekend work as her brother was disabled and needed to rest at weekends;  Mrs. Winter was in the process of building a property in the garden of No.16 The Avenue but had lived in No.99 The Avenue for 37 years;  Mrs. Winter also had concerns in respect of the balcony and felt that it would overlook her property and garden;  She also felt that the balcony could eventually be extended over the boundary of the flat roof in time;  When applying for permission to build her bungalow in No.16 The Avenue it had been subject to stringent controls and restrictions which did not seem to apply in this case;  The proposed extension was out of proportion with the existing dwelling and out of character with the surrounding area but Mrs. Winter’s main concern was the balcony. Mr. Ratip in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  Mr. Ratip stated that he had purchased the property last year;  Mr. Ratip reported that once the extension was completed it would not protrude more than 2.5m on either side. His house was dominated by the new house at No. 16 and the extension was moving as far as that;  All objections received had been taken seriously which was the reason why the plans had been amended. Mr. Ratip therefore believed that he had worked to Government and local Council policies; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

In response to queries raised by the Committee Mr. Ratip confirmed that none of the hedge would be removed at all during construction of the garage and that the roof level of the garage would be the same height as the hedge and there would therefore be no overlooking into neighbouring gardens. In considering the above application Members raised concerns in respect of the design of the gable ends and the chimney which appeared to be rather high. Mr. Ratip stated that the design of the dwelling was not so attractive from the rear and he had tried to ensure that the architecture of the extension was in keeping with the period of the house. Members were also concerned in respect of the siting of the garage and the lack of turning space to the rear of the property which would mean that vehicles would either have to reverse in or out of the garage. Mr. Ratip informed the Committee that there had been a garage in that location previously so there should be no difference now. The Planning Officer reported that amended plans had been received and the applicant had agreed to the removal of the balcony from the scheme. However, the plans had been received outside the 5 day rule and could therefore not be considered by the Committee this evening. The Planning Officer advised that the application could be deferred to enable further consultation to take place on the revised plans. Councillor Royce Longton asked if the Tree Officer could be consulted in respect of the possible damage to the roots of the hedge during construction of the garage. The Planning Officer confirmed that he would be consulted as a matter of course in any event. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be authorised to defer the application to enable the applicant to withdraw the current application and submit a revised application taking into account concerns identified by Members during debate. 83. APPLICATION NO. 06/02147/FULD – SPIRE RIDGDE, BATH ROAD, MIDGHAM, BERKSHIRE. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 06/02147/FULD in respect of the redevelopment of kennels to create three houses with associated B1 live/work floorspace. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Ray Disson, Parish Council representative, and Mr. Andy Mash, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr. Disson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  Mr. Disson stated that the Parish Council strongly objected to the new proposal;  The District Council did not have a definition for a ‘live/work unit’;  Concerns had been raised on the previous application in respect of the height of the dwellings which would be visible from the A4. The 1.5 storey buildings proposed in this application would be more highly visible and would dominate the landscape;  The development would contravene Policy ENV20 parts (a) and (b);  The work area in this proposal was only 64sq.m as opposed to 79sq.m. in the 2003 application and the live area had increased from 156sq.m to 244sq.m; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

 The Parish Council asked the Committee to consider the application carefully as they felt that it would set a precedent if a clear definition of a live/work unit was not set. Mr. Mash in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  Mr. Mash admitted that the ridge heights had caused concern and stated that the ridge height could be reduced to 7.75m;  Mr. Mash had liaised with Highways on the proposal;  It was felt that the reduced size of the work units were more viable;  The s106 Agreement would protect the B1 use. In considering the above application Members had concerns in respect of this proposal. They liked the principle but felt that the original application had a more clearly defined relationship between the living and work areas. The main access to the work units appeared to be through the house and was therefore not suitable for work use. The Planning Officer stated that the applicant had attempted to deal with the concerns raised and had stated that he would be happy to change the ridge height and slab level. Members asked for clarification in respect of the highways contribution on how that figure had been agreed and what the funding would be spent on. The Highways Officer stated that the figure was based on the number of bedrooms and would be spent on three areas – road safety in the vicinity of the site; improvements to footways and cycleways; and bus service improvements including provision of bus shelters. Members raised concerns in respect of the level of workspace within each unit and the effect of the increased height on adjacent areas. Units 1 and 2 were reasonably well sited but Unit 3 was also visually intrusive to adjacent landowners and it was felt that the height of the original proposal should apply. Members also felt that the access from the site onto the A4 was dangerous particularly if turning right. Members felt that the reduction in the area of workspace for each unit was unacceptable as it would make the work units unviable. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: 1. Visual impact of the development when viewed from the A4 and unacceptable visual impact of Unit 3 on adjoining property; 2. Reduction in size of work units would render work element of the live/work units available, therefore development not justified. 84. APPLICATION NO. 06/02155/FULD – TRUNKWELL FARM, BEECH HILL ROAD, BEECH HILL. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 06/02155/FULD in respect of the conversion of traditional brick and timer frame barns to create a single dwelling and B1 (live – work office space). Provision of sustainable development works and demolition of modern farm buildings and landscape reinstatement. EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Mike Wells and Mr. Mark Pettitt, applicants/agents, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr. Wells and Mr. Pettitt in addressing the Committee raised the following points:  Mr. Pettitt stated that the proposal would remove a number of redundant modern farm buildings which were no longer required;  Mr. Pettitt felt that the character of the countryside would be improved by the development;  Residential use of the site would be more sustainable than commercial re-use as there would be less traffic movement;  A new private footpath link would be provided to enable easy access to Beech Hill village;  The proposal also included the provision of a B1 live/work unit;  The application proposed a number of sustainable energy initiatives such as solar power heating, ground source heat pump facilities and on-site sewerage treatment;  Mr. Wells stated that the applicants, Thrive, were a national charity who provided gardening opportunities for people with disabilities;  There were over 10 million people with disabilities in the UK and 25% of them were interested in gardening;  Thrive had received the farm on a freehold basis and had managed to rent out the farmland but had no use for the redundant farm buildings;  Mr. Wells felt that the proposal helped to tidy up an unsightly part of the farm;  Thrive also worked with blind people who could do just as much in the garden as a sighted person but required a little more support;  Thrive worked with 14-16 year olds on tree planting and conservation projects. In considering the above application Members agreed that the site visit had been beneficial. Modern farm buildings had been allowed to degenerate and Members felt that the proposed application made use of buildings that were already there and removed the redundant farm buildings which were an eyesore. Members recognised that sustainability was important but felt that the proposal had several energy saving initiatives within it that could outweigh the fact that it was in an unsustainable location. Members also noted that the farmhouse already had approval for conversion and extension. The Planning Officer stated that the application was contrary to two Local Plan Policies. Policy HSG2 allowed for the reuse of buildings within the countryside in line with Policy ENV19 which sought to ensure that they did not require extensive alterations, extensions or rebuilding. The proposal was effectively replacing a building with a new one which fell under Policy ENV20. The Planning Officer felt that the amount of work required to convert the buildings would be so extensive that it would, in effect, be a redevelopment. Both Policy ENV19, which dealt with the re-use of rural buildings, and Policy ENV20, which dealt with redevelopment of rural buildings, placed emphasis on the need for sites to be located in sustainable locations. This site was not considered to be in a sustainable location and the Planning Officer felt that sustainability should be the first thing to be EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 01/11/06 – MINUTES

looked at in any application and the Planning system was at the forefront of achieving sustainability. Approval should not be given just to tidy up the site and the Planning Officer advised that if the Committee were minded to approve the application then the Planning Officer would recommend that the application should be referred up to Full Council. The Planning Officer stated that this application was similar to an application for Malpas Farm which had recently been refused. He felt that the Committee should demonstrate commitment to the Local Plan. Commercial use should be looked at before residential use when considering the reuse of buildings in the countryside and that process had not been followed in this case. Members felt that there was no comparison with this application and the one at Malpas Farm. They argued that sustainability was a wider issue and that the applicant was proposing to re-use 50% of existing materials which was sustainable. The Legal Officer advised that Members needed to be aware of the possibility of Judicial Review and that decisions such as these would be closely looked at by other developers in the district. Members RESOLVED that the application should be referred to Full Council after Officer advice that a vote to approve the application would be in fundamental conflict with Development Plan Policy and Government Guidance in respect of sustainable development and conversion of rural buildings. 85. APPEAL DECISIONS REALTING TO EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE. Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area. 86. SITE VISIT. Land to rear of Stonehurst, Bradfield – Site visit agreed to take place on 21 st November 2006 at 9.30am. However, the Planning Officer advised that the site visit might not be necessary if the application was refused under delegated powers. The Planning Officer also advised that the Kennet Valley Park application had been withdrawn and the applicant intended to resubmit a further application in the New Year. (The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and closed at 9.15pm)

CHAIRMAN ……………………………………………

Date of Signature: ……………………………………………