Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 August 2022.

The Committee noted a typing error in the title of meeting held on 18 August 2022 which should have read “PLANNING COMMITTEE”.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2022 were approved as a correct record.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary or affected interests in respect of any matter to be considered at this meeting.

Any Member with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter should withdraw from the meeting when the matter is under consideration and should notify the Democratic Services Officer in attendance that they are withdrawing as they have such an interest. If the Disclosable Pecuniary Interest is not entered on the register of Members interests the Monitoring Officer must be notified of the interest within 28 days.

Any Member with an Affected Interest in a matter must disclose the interest to the meeting.  There is no requirement to withdraw from the meeting when the interest is only an affected interest, but the Monitoring Officer should be notified of the interest, if not previously notified of it, within 28 days of the meeting.

Councillor Brossard declared an affected interest in agenda item 7, 22/00003/FUL, 121 College Road, College Town, Sandhurst as Councillor Michael Sanderson, a Sandhurst Town Councillor and the Mayor of Sandhurst, lived next-door to the site.

Councillor Mossom also declared an affected interest in agenda item 7, 22/00003/FUL, 121 College Road, College Town, Sandhurst as Deputy Mayor of Sandhurst.

Councillor Birch also declared an affected interest in agenda item 7, 22/00003/FUL, 121 College Road, College Town, Sandhurst as a member of Sandhurst Town Council and would leave the meeting for the item.

Any other items which, pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman decides are urgent.

There were no urgent items of business.

Erection of 4no 3 bed dwellings and associated access following demolition of existing bungalow.

Erection of 4no 3 bed dwellings and associated access following demolition of existing bungalow.

The Committee noted:

• The supplementary report tabled at the meeting.
• The comments of Sandhurst Town Council recommending refusal of the proposal as summarised in the agenda.
• The 9 letters of objection as summarised in the agenda

RESOLVED that following the completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to:-

01. Mitigation of impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA;

02. Access road including carriageway, footway/margin and street lighting to be adopted under S38 of the Highways Act 1980 up to and including the extent of turning head need for refuse collection and fire tender and to the boundary with no. 2 Richmond Road to the east;

03. New access onto Richmond Road to be formed using an agreement under S278 of the Highways Act 1980, to include formation of the new access and stopping up of the existing access and raising the kerb to full-height,

the Assistant Director: Planning be authorised to APPROVE the application 19/01104/FUL subject to the following conditions amended, added to or deleted as the Assistant Director: Planning considers necessary and following the required consultation with the agent in relation to pre-commencement conditions: -

1.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 31.08.2022:

1634-010 L - Site Location and Block Plan

1634-100 A - Plots 1 & 2 Proposed Plans

1634-101 D - Plots 1 & 2 Proposed Elevations

1634-102 - Plots 1 & 2 Proposed Roof Plans

1634-107 - Plots 3 & 4 Proposed Plans

1634-108 A - Plots 3 & 4 Proposed Plans

1634-109 B - Plots 3 & 4 Proposed Elevations

1634-110 - Proposed Cycle & Bin Store Elevations

Flood Risk Assessment Ref 75125R1 dated 19.08.2021

Soakage Test Results S052205 dated May 2022

Drainage schematic 75125.01R2 received 01.07.2022

Arbtech Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment Survey April 2020

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

3.       The residential accommodation hereby approved shall not comprise more than 4no.three bedroomed dwellings. REASON: To ensure the development does not impose undue pressure on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area over and above the financial mitigation secured by a legal agreement which was based upon the number of bedrooms approved under this planning permission.

[Relevant Policies: Saved Policy NRM6, Saved policy EN3 of the BFBLP and CS14of CSDPD, the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area SPD (April 2018), the Planning Obligations SPD and the NPPF].

4.       No part of the development hereby permitted shall be begun until details showing the finished floor levels of the building/s in relation to a fixed datum point in the surrounding area have been submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Erection of 1 no. 3-bed dwelling with associated parking and alterations to existing dwelling including porch to front, single storey rear extension and rear dormer.

Erection of 1 no. 3-bed dwelling with associated parking and alterations to existing dwelling including porch to front, single storey rear extension and rear dormer.

The Committee noted:

• The supplementary report tabled at the meeting.
• The comments of Bracknell Town Council objecting to the proposal as summarised in the agenda.
• The 6 letters of objection from the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings as summarised in the agenda.
• The additional letter of objection submitted from the residents of 12 properties as detailed in the supplementary report.

A motion to APPROVE the recommendation in the officer report was proposed but fell at the vote.

Therefore, an alternative motion to REFUSE the application was proposed and seconded, and on being put to the vote was CARRIED.

RESOLVED that application 21/00792/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.       By reason of its size, bulk and proximity to the neighbouring properties, the proposed dwelling would be considered an unneighbourly form of development resulting in adverse overbearing impacts to the detriment of the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring properties, contrary to 'Saved' Policy EN20 of the BFBLP, Policy CS7 of the CSDPD, the Design SPD and the NPPF.

2.       In the absence of a planning obligation to secure suitable avoidance and mitigation measures and access management monitoring arrangements, in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, the proposal would be contrary to Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan, Policy EN3 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

Revised scheme for erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory and installation of two air conditioning units

Revised scheme for erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory and installation of two air conditioning units.

The Committee noted:

• The supplementary report tabled at the meeting.
• That Sandhurst Town Council raised no objection to the proposal.
• The 2 letters of objection on behalf of the occupiers of 117-119 College Road as summarised in the agenda.
• The letter of support from the applicant as summarised in the agenda
• The additional representation from the applicant as detailed in the supplementary report.

A motion to APPROVE the recommendation in the officer report was proposed but fell at the vote.

Therefore, an alternative motion to REFUSE the application was proposed and seconded, and on being put to the vote was CARRIED.

RESOLVED that application 22/00003/FUL be REFUSED for the following reason:

By reason of its size, bulk and proximity to the neighbouring properties, the proposed development would be considered an unneighbourly form of development resulting in adverse impacts to the detriment of the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring properties, contrary to 'Saved' Policy EN20 of the BFBLP, Policy CS7 of the CSDPD, the Design SPD and the NPPF.