Agenda item

Councillor Margaret Turner had declared a personal interest in this application.

The Officers reported receipt of comments from Councillor Reg Waite on behalf of Harwell residents, which was read out in full at the meeting.  Councillor Waite had made the following comments: -

·                    He had a personal interest in so far as he was acquainted with Mr Stewart Lilly who was his neighbour but the interest was not prejudicial.

·                    He represented many residents who wished this application to be approved without any hesitation whatsoever.

·                    Harwell welcomed additional housing in this historical village and it was very rare when the Parish Council or residents opposed any application.

·                    Indeed as observed from paragraph 4.1 of the report, Harwell Parish Council did not object to this application, neither did the County Engineer or the Principal Drainage Engineer.

·                    Although three letters of objection had been submitted these were considered to be rather weak.

·                    Many residents of Harwell found the recommendation of this application difficult to believe bearing in mind that Planning Application no HAR/19966/1 relating to the construction of two detached properties off Burr Street had been approved despite the many objections.

·                    He referred to the planning policies and the comments in paragraph 3.1 of the report commenting that the local distinctiveness referred to had been ignored in the Burr Street application and it was difficult to understand its relevance in this application.

·                    With reference to paragraph 3.2 of the report, it was considered that this application would not harm the amenities of neighbouring properties and the wider environment, but the Burr Street development certainly did according to many residents.

·                    With reference to paragraph 3.3 of the report it was questioned whether Policy H11 applied in this application.  Only one property would be constructed and it could not be seen how this dwelling would materially harm the form, structure or character of the settlement.

·                    Similarly Policy H13 was questioned too, because this proposed new dwelling would not be outside of the built up area of the village, but incorporated within it.

·                    Paragraph 3.4 of the report was comprehensively difficult to understand and must give all Members present cause for thought.

·                    Local residents and Members must be asking where were the vantage points.

·                    In the circumstances it was questionable whether Policy NE6 of the adopted Local Plan was appropriate here until this and other matters were clarified.

·                    The residents of Harwell strongly recommended that Members re-examined application HAR 19966/1 Burr Street development; application HAR/14234/5 property developed off Reading Road; and the granting of application for development in Froud’s Yard, again off Reading Road.  All three cases related to land on the edge of the village and residents failed to see any sound and professional uniformity applied.

·                    In all the circumstances it was recommended that a site visit be arranged for Members before any decision was reached on this application and that this application be deferred until this and other obscure decisions and situations relating to the village of Harwell were clearly established beyond any doubt.

The Officers commented that the application should be considered on its merits.  The Officers highlighted that a previous application on this site had been dismissed on appeal and it was noted that the inspector’s  decision had stated that the proposal would have resulted in an extension of Holloway Lane.  In the Officers’  view there were not material considerations which changed this.

Mr S Lilly, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application . He commented that he had a personal interest in so far as he was the Vice-Chair of Harwell Parish Council but explained that he had taken no part in consideration of the application at any meeting of the Parish Council.  He reported that he had lived in the village for 22 years and that the important question was about this site being in or out of the village.  He explained that the road had been made up to County standards in 1999.   It was now a fully made up tarmac surface and that this was different to the position when the refused application had been considered.  Furthermore a fence had been erected.  He reported that the land had been damaged by walkers and users of the lane. He explained that the proposed development resembled a barn and that the applicant was prepared to move the house slightly within the fence line to reorientate it and take site lines in.  Furthermore, levels could be addressed within site.  He explained that the development would provide the natural rounding off of the village and the proposal had local support.

One Member noted that the inspectors dismissal was some years ago and stated that should the Committee be minded to refuse the application now, it should be confident of the reasons and that circumstances had not changed.

One Member commented that planning consideration had nothing to do with popularity and that it was clear that the proposal was contrary to planning policy.  Furthermore, the Committee also had the benefits of an inspector’s decision on this site to dismiss an appeal.

Another Member commented that the inspector had concluded on one important issue and that was that this site was in an area of outstanding natural beauty outside the village boundary and this had not changed. It was considered that to approve the application would be contrary to policy and would go against an inspector’s decision. It was noted that the access track had changed but that was not relevant.  It was emphasised that the natural rounding off argument had already been considered in relation to this site.

By 12 votes to nil with 3 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application HAR/20598 be refused for the reason set out in the report.