Agenda and minutes

Venue: Desborough Suite - Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Shilpa Manek  01628 796310

Audio-recording: To listen, click here or to download and listen later, right click and save as an mp3

Items
No. Item

122.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

No Apologies for absence were received.

123.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST pdf icon PDF 218 KB

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

Declarations were received from the following Members:

 

Councillor Walters and Wilson declared a personal interest for items 3 and 4 as they are both Bray Parish Council Members.

124.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 98 KB

To confirm the part I minutes of the meeting of 21 November 2018.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting on 21 November 2018 were Unanimously Agreed as a true and accurate record.

125.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS (DECISION) pdf icon PDF 52 KB

To consider the Head of Planning’s report on planning applications received.

 

Full details on all planning applications (including application forms, site plans, objections received, correspondence etc.) can be found by accessing the Planning Applications Public Access Module at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/search.jsp.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Panel considered the Head of Planning and Development’s report on planning

applications and received updates in relation to a number of applications, following the publication of the agenda.

 

NB: *Updates were received in relation to planning applications marked with an asterisk.

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda, be amended.

 

Item 2

 

18/02105/FULL

 

Land To The South of Stafferton Way And East of Vicus Way Maidenhead

 

Erection of five storey split-deck multi-storey car park with access and associated landscaping following removal of existing slab and hardstanding (Regulation 3 application).

 

Councillor Stretton proposed a motion to REFUSE the application for the following six reasons:

 

·         Loss of employment site and further loss would undermine the employment strategy set out in the BLPSV contrary to emerging policy ED2.

·         Another site is allocated in policy OA6 of the AAP for a car park and no evidence has been submitted to support the construction of a car park on this site, it is therefore contrary to policy.

·         The bulk, mass and scale, is incongruous in the context of nearby dwellings contrary to Local Plan policy DG1, AAP policies MTC1 and MTC4 and policies SP1 and SP2 of BLPSV which indicate high quality development compatible with their location and contribute to community integration. The proposal is poor design contrary to Section 12 NPPF. The proposal would result in an overbearing impact as a result of height and location resulting in loss of sunlight and adversely affecting amenity and quality of life of those nearby occupiers. Contrary to SP3 BLPSV.

·         History of antisocial behaviour in nearby car parks and the proposal is likely to attract ASB and the possibility of crime, including fear of crime.  The location is unsuitable due to proximity to nearby dwellings. Whilst the operation of car park is unlikely to have observable impact on the local communities the application clearly did not take account of ASB contrary to para 127 of the NPPF.

·         There is another site available and therefore the proposal has not passed the sequential test contrary to para 158 of the NPPF.

·         RBWM is in the process of producing a strategy to deal with tall buildings and parking in the town centre and therefore this application is premature.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Hunt.

 

A second motion was proposed by Councillor Love to PERMIT the application as per Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Kellaway.

 

A named vote was carried on the first motion to refuse the application. Councillors Hunt, Sharp, Stretton and Wilson voted for refusal of the application. Councillors Kellaway, Love and Smith voted against refusal and Councillor Walters abstained from voting.

 

It was agreed that the application be REFUSED.

 

Since the first motion was upheld, the second motion fell away.

 

(The Panel were addressed by Noni Konig, Stephen and Alexander Konig, Helen Taylor, Sarah Storey, Mathlide Rossignol and Judy De Haan, Objectors, Matthew Blythin, Applicants Agent, Gurch Singh, supporter of Application. The Panel were also addressed by Councillors Majeed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

126.

ESSENTIAL MONITORING REPORTS (MONITORING) pdf icon PDF 78 KB

To consider the Appeals Decision Report and Planning Appeals Received.

Minutes:

The Panel noted the appeal decisions.