Hart Borough Council
Councillors:
33
Wards:
11
Committees:
14
Meetings (2025):
60
Meetings (2024):
60
Meeting
Development Management Committee - Hart
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 18th December 2024
7:00 PM
Wednesday, 18th December 2024
7:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 18th December 2024
11:00 PM
Wednesday, 18th December 2024
11:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
18 Dec 2024
18 Dec 2024
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Officer
Senior Planner
Michael Lee
In attendance
Vice-Chairman
Portfolio Holder - Planning Policy and Development Management
Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Climate Change and Corporate Services
Committee Member
Portfolio Holder - Regulatory
Officer
Executive Director - Place
Mark Jaggard
In attendance
Officer
Chief Executive
Daryl Phillips
Expected
Officer
Development Management & Building Control Manager
Stephanie Baker
In attendance
Officer
Shared Legal Services
Expected
Committee Member
Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder - Finance
Officer
Business Development Manager - Place
Mark Berry
Expected
Officer
Development Management Team Leader
Kathryn Pearson
Expected
Officer
Principal Planner
Miguel Martinez
In attendance
Officer
Shared Legal Services Manager
Ann Greaves
In attendance
Officer
Committee Services Officer
Kathy Long
Democratic Services
In attendance
Agenda
1
Minutes of Previous Meeting
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2024 as a correct record.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of Previous Meeting 10 Dec 2024
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
2
Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for absence from Members*.
*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services in advance of the meeting as soon as they become aware they will be absent.
*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services in advance of the meeting as soon as they become aware they will be absent.
Minutes
Apologies for absence had been received from Cllrs Delaney, Dorn, Oliver and Radley.
Cllr Delaney was substituted at the meeting by Cllr Jones. Cllr Dorn was substituted by Cllr Hale and Cllr Oliver was substituted by Cllr Davies.
Cllr Delaney was substituted at the meeting by Cllr Jones. Cllr Dorn was substituted by Cllr Hale and Cllr Oliver was substituted by Cllr Davies.
3
Declarations of Interest
Members to make declarations of interest relating to items on the agenda.
Minutes
Cllr Brown declared a non-prejudicial interest in application 24/00467/FUL (Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall) for the reason that he worked in the wine trade and had worked previously for an English sparkling wine producer. However he did not know the applicant.
4
Chair's Announcements
Minutes
The Chairman referred to the recent publication by the Government of a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The agenda reports had been written and published ahead of this. Officers had reviewed all the applications for consideration at the meeting in line with the revised NPPF. The Addendum sheet set out any relevant changes in respect of the individual applications for consideration.
A briefing for all Members was being arranged to take place in January on the revised NPPF.
A briefing for all Members was being arranged to take place in January on the revised NPPF.
5
Development Management (Enforcement) Sub-Committee - Minutes
To note the draft minutes of the Development Management (Enforcement) Sub-Committee meeting held on 21 October 2024.
Attachments:
Minutes
The Committee noted the draft minutes of the meeting of the Development Management (Enforcement) Sub-Committee held on 21 October 2024.
6
.1
Application 24/00467/FUL - Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall
6
.2
Application 24/01202/FUL - Europa House, 5 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartley Way, Hook
6
.3
Application 24/01300/FUL - Land north-east of Winchfield Lodge, Old Potbridge Road, Winchfield
6
.4
Application 24/01428/FUL - Adsyst Automation Ltd, Yateley Lodge, Reading Road, Yateley
6
Development Applications
To consider the planning reports from the Executive Director, Place, and to accept updates via the Addendum.
Attachments:
- Document Application - 24/00467/FUL - Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall 10 Dec 2024
- Document Application 24/01202/FUL - Europa House, 5 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartey Way, Hook 10 Dec 2024
- Document Application 24/01300/FUL - Land North-East of Winchfield Lodge, Old Potbridge Road, Winchfield 10 Dec 2024
- Document Application 24/01428/FUL - Adsyst Automation Ltd, Yateley Lodge, Reading Road, Yateley 10 Dec 2024
- Document Development Applications Report 2024-25 10 Dec 2024
Minutes
The development management report from the Executive Director – Place was considered and the updates via the Addendum were accepted by the Committee.
(1) Application 24/00467/FUL – Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall
The Senior Planner summarised application 24/00467/FUL for the erection of a detached single storey building for mixed use as a café and cellar door facility to accommodate wine tours and sales, including a kitchen/store to the side with a covered veranda (retrospective), installation of a chiller (retrospective), erection of a single storey building for use for food storage and preparation, covered walkway, outdoor seating area and the proposed formation of a new access to a car park for 28 vehicles on an existing agricultural field to be used in association with the café and cellar door facility at Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
Members questioned the Senior Planner on:
· What element of the Local Plan was contravened by the application,
· The need to support the rural economy,
- What justification would be required from the applicant for the additional diversification of the winery and cellar door,
· Whether the Council’s Tree Officer had raised an objection to the application,
· The proposed new location of the car park,
· The issues concerning potential development creep,
· The objections raised regarding the effect of the applicant’s business on pubs in Crondall, and
· Whether Officers had liaised with the applicant regarding the need for sufficient information justifying the need for the café in terms of the viability of the business.
In response, the Committee was advised that:
· Planning permission had been granted in 2023 for the erection of a ‘cellar door’ facility to support the winery business on site (22/01404/FUL). However, the development had not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans,
· The main concern regarding the additional diversification involving the construction of a cafe was that development in the countryside without out appropriate justification to demonstrate that further farm diversification was necessary,
· Although the Council’s Tree Officer had not responded, the works proposed would have no impact on trees,
· It was confirmed that the café was currently in operation,
· The proposed new location for the car park was in an open agricultural field sited between the cluster of existing winery buildings and the residential buildings to the west of Crondall. The Council’s Conservation team had raised concerns about the location and that it would have a harmful impact upon the setting of the Crondall Conservation Area – but at the less than substantial level of harm,
· The concern of residents has raised in relation to competition with local pubs was not a material planning consideration. Members were advised that planning conditions attached to the planning permission obtained in 2023 included that only alcohol produced by Penn Croft could be sold on the premises, and
· It was confirmed that Officers had liaised with the applicant, including the suggestion to the applicant to withdraw the application and re-submit with additional information to justify the further diversification.
There were no questions for the public speaker against the planning application.
Members questioned the speaker in support of the application (the applicant) regarding:
· Whether the café staff were local residents,
· Whether the café’s suppliers were local companies,
· Why the car park had to be re-sited, and
· Objections raised by local resident.
During debate:
· Members commented on the difficult decision to be made as it was important for the Officers to apply the Council’s planning policies,
· Members were of the opinion that the impact of the application on heritage issues would be minimal,
· Members felt that the Council should be supporting the rural economy,
· Members disapproved of retrospective planning applications as this undermined the planning process,
· Members supported the mitigations proposed by Crondall Parish Council should the application be approved,
· The applicant had explained that further vines would be planted in the field near the revised location for the car park, which when grown would mask the view of the car park.
Members debated while the applicant had not provided information to justify this further diversification of the rural business, that with a degree of pragmatism the additional café space would provide support to the rural business.
Members discussed if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application the Executive Director - Place should work with the Chair and the Ward Councillor on the Committee to draft planning conditions to mitigate against the concerns raised by the Committee and Crondall Parish Council.
The recommendation to refuse was proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Makepeace-Browne. A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllr Hale (1)
Against: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill, Makepeace-Browne, Davies, Jones, Quarterman, Southern, Wildsmith, Worlock (9)
Abstained: (0)
The recommendation moved to refuse planning permission was not carried.
It was then proposed by Cllr Southern; seconded by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) that planning permission be granted subject to planning conditions. This was agreed unanimously.
The Committee resolved that:
The Development Management Committee delegate power to the Executive Director – Place to Grant planning permission, subject to planning conditions to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and the Ward Councillor on the Development Management Committee, taking into account the conditions applied to the previously permission (22/01404/FUL) and the comments raised by Crondall Parish Council.
Note:
Speaking
Against the application: Mr Michael Coomber
For the application: Mr Malcolm Walker (applicant)
(2) Application 24/01202/FUL – Europa House, 5 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartley Way, Hook
The Principal Planner summarised application 24/01202/FUL for the construction of two buildings for flexible use within Classes B2/B8/E(g)(i)-(iii) together with access, associated parking, servicing, landscaping and ancillary works at Europa House, 5 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartley Way, Hook.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
As set out in the Addendum, amendments were proposed to the planning conditions in the Committee report in respect of operating hours (conditions 17 and 18). These conditions had been revised to fully match the operational restrictions of the proposed units to those imposed to the industrial units approved on the eastern side to Providence House.
Members questioned the Principal Planner on:
· How many of the buildings on the Bartley Wood Business Park were still in operation as industrial/business units and how many were residential units.
· If building number 7 on the plan of the Business Park was empty.
In response, the Committee was advised that:
· The only building where a change of use to residential had taken place was Providence House. The remainder of the units still had an employment use even though a number were vacant.
Members questioned the public speaker in support of the application on:
· The size of the proposed units.
· The traffic movements anticipated on site.
· Why the proposed larger unit needed space for three artic lorries.
· If the application site would be used for a parcel delivery service or distribution centre
During debate:
· Members voiced concerns that the residential use on the business park which is a protected employment site,
· Members noted that there had been a similar situation at Ancells Farm, Fleet where replacement employment use was granted planning permission next to a residential use, similar to Providence House,
· It was stated that Bartley Way was not a wide road, and Members were concerned about the welfare, wellbeing and safety of the residents in Providence House in view of transport and highway issues in the area
· Some Members raised concern about the potential noise levels from the industrial units.
· Concern was expressed regarding the potential for disturbance to the residential unit by the hours of operation of the industrial units.
The recommendations were proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Quarterman. A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill (Chair), Davies, Jones, Makepeace-Browne, Quarterman and Southern (7)
Against: Cllrs Hale, Wildsmith and Worlock (3)
Abstained: (0)
The Committee resolved that:
Resolution A:
The Development Management Committee delegated power to the Executive Director – Place to Grant planning permission, subject to:
· the applicant first entering into a section 106 agreement / undertaking in respect of planning obligations for a financial contribution of £30,000 towards pedestrian/cycling improvements along Griffin Way South; £29,260 to cover travel plan(s) implementation, monitoring and enforcement; and the provision of pedestrian crossings along Bartley Way to Hampshire County Council standards, and
· the planning conditions listed in the Committee report (and as amended in the Addendum).
Resolution B:
The Development Management Committee delegated power to the Executive Director – Place to Refuse planning permission in the event that the Section 106 agreement is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution (or longer period as may be agreed by the Executive Director – Place. Reason: That, in the absence of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the highway related planning obligations, the proposal would be contrary to Polices INF1 and INF3 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 and the aims of the NPPF.
Speaking:
Against the application: Ms Selena Coburn
For the application: Ms Charlotte Grant, on behalf of Bartley Griffin Developments LLP
(3) Application 24/01300/FUL – Land North-East of Winchfield Lodge, Old Potbridge Road, Winchfield
The Senior Planner summarised application 24/02300/FUL for the change of use of land to a mixed use of agricultural and equestrian, together with the erection of stabling and a new access and track at land north-east of Winchfield Lodge, Old Potbridge Road, Winchfield.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
Members were advised that:
· amended plans had been received on 3 December 2024 lowering the height of the machinery barn element from 6.4 metres to 5.9 metres. Condition 2 had been amended to update “Proposed Plans and Elevations (GP/04/24 REV C)’ to REV D
· NPPF had been revised to remove the word “beautiful” in reference to the design of new buildings. This change did not alter the Officers’ assessment overall that the proposed development was acceptable in design terms.
Members questioned the Senior Planner on the size of the stables.
Members questioned the public speaker against the application on the volume of traffic using Old Potbridge Road.
There were no questions for the public speaker in support of the application.
During debate:
· Members queried the reason for the size of the proposed stables as it was felt to be too large for two horses and two ponies.
· The view was expressed that Old Potbridge Road was frequently used as a footpath and there was concern about the implication of the development on safety.
· Members asked whether the proposed planning condition 5 would be enforceable.
The recommendations (as amended at the meeting to include highways conditions) were proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Makepeace-Brown. A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill (Chair), Davies, Jones, Hale, Makepeace-Browne, Quarterman, Wildsmith and Worlock (9)
Against: Cllr Southern (1)
Abstained: 0
The Committee resolved that planning permission be granted, subject to the planning conditions listed in the Committee report with the additional highway condition(s) discussed at the meeting.
Speaking:
Against the application: Mr Simon Naudi
(4) Application 24/01428/FUL – Adsyst Automation Ltd, Yateley Lodge, Reading Road, Yateley
The Senior Planner summarised application 24/01428/FUL for the erection of a covered cycle store at Adsyst Automation Ltd, Yateley Lodge, Reading Road, Yateley.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
The Committee had no questions for the Senior Planner.
The Committee had no questions for the public speaker against the application.
During debate Officers confirmed that the Council’s Enforcement team would investigate issues raised regarding any breaches of planning control at this site.
The recommendation was proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Quarterman and agreed unanimously.
The Committee resolved that planning permission be granted, subject to the planning conditions listed in the Committee report.
Note:
Speaking
Against the application: Mr Paul Thompson
(1) Application 24/00467/FUL – Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall
The Senior Planner summarised application 24/00467/FUL for the erection of a detached single storey building for mixed use as a café and cellar door facility to accommodate wine tours and sales, including a kitchen/store to the side with a covered veranda (retrospective), installation of a chiller (retrospective), erection of a single storey building for use for food storage and preparation, covered walkway, outdoor seating area and the proposed formation of a new access to a car park for 28 vehicles on an existing agricultural field to be used in association with the café and cellar door facility at Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
Members questioned the Senior Planner on:
· What element of the Local Plan was contravened by the application,
· The need to support the rural economy,
- What justification would be required from the applicant for the additional diversification of the winery and cellar door,
· Whether the Council’s Tree Officer had raised an objection to the application,
· The proposed new location of the car park,
· The issues concerning potential development creep,
· The objections raised regarding the effect of the applicant’s business on pubs in Crondall, and
· Whether Officers had liaised with the applicant regarding the need for sufficient information justifying the need for the café in terms of the viability of the business.
In response, the Committee was advised that:
· Planning permission had been granted in 2023 for the erection of a ‘cellar door’ facility to support the winery business on site (22/01404/FUL). However, the development had not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans,
· The main concern regarding the additional diversification involving the construction of a cafe was that development in the countryside without out appropriate justification to demonstrate that further farm diversification was necessary,
· Although the Council’s Tree Officer had not responded, the works proposed would have no impact on trees,
· It was confirmed that the café was currently in operation,
· The proposed new location for the car park was in an open agricultural field sited between the cluster of existing winery buildings and the residential buildings to the west of Crondall. The Council’s Conservation team had raised concerns about the location and that it would have a harmful impact upon the setting of the Crondall Conservation Area – but at the less than substantial level of harm,
· The concern of residents has raised in relation to competition with local pubs was not a material planning consideration. Members were advised that planning conditions attached to the planning permission obtained in 2023 included that only alcohol produced by Penn Croft could be sold on the premises, and
· It was confirmed that Officers had liaised with the applicant, including the suggestion to the applicant to withdraw the application and re-submit with additional information to justify the further diversification.
There were no questions for the public speaker against the planning application.
Members questioned the speaker in support of the application (the applicant) regarding:
· Whether the café staff were local residents,
· Whether the café’s suppliers were local companies,
· Why the car park had to be re-sited, and
· Objections raised by local resident.
During debate:
· Members commented on the difficult decision to be made as it was important for the Officers to apply the Council’s planning policies,
· Members were of the opinion that the impact of the application on heritage issues would be minimal,
· Members felt that the Council should be supporting the rural economy,
· Members disapproved of retrospective planning applications as this undermined the planning process,
· Members supported the mitigations proposed by Crondall Parish Council should the application be approved,
· The applicant had explained that further vines would be planted in the field near the revised location for the car park, which when grown would mask the view of the car park.
Members debated while the applicant had not provided information to justify this further diversification of the rural business, that with a degree of pragmatism the additional café space would provide support to the rural business.
Members discussed if the Committee was minded to approve the planning application the Executive Director - Place should work with the Chair and the Ward Councillor on the Committee to draft planning conditions to mitigate against the concerns raised by the Committee and Crondall Parish Council.
The recommendation to refuse was proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Makepeace-Browne. A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllr Hale (1)
Against: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill, Makepeace-Browne, Davies, Jones, Quarterman, Southern, Wildsmith, Worlock (9)
Abstained: (0)
The recommendation moved to refuse planning permission was not carried.
It was then proposed by Cllr Southern; seconded by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) that planning permission be granted subject to planning conditions. This was agreed unanimously.
The Committee resolved that:
The Development Management Committee delegate power to the Executive Director – Place to Grant planning permission, subject to planning conditions to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and the Ward Councillor on the Development Management Committee, taking into account the conditions applied to the previously permission (22/01404/FUL) and the comments raised by Crondall Parish Council.
Note:
Speaking
Against the application: Mr Michael Coomber
For the application: Mr Malcolm Walker (applicant)
(2) Application 24/01202/FUL – Europa House, 5 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartley Way, Hook
The Principal Planner summarised application 24/01202/FUL for the construction of two buildings for flexible use within Classes B2/B8/E(g)(i)-(iii) together with access, associated parking, servicing, landscaping and ancillary works at Europa House, 5 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartley Way, Hook.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
As set out in the Addendum, amendments were proposed to the planning conditions in the Committee report in respect of operating hours (conditions 17 and 18). These conditions had been revised to fully match the operational restrictions of the proposed units to those imposed to the industrial units approved on the eastern side to Providence House.
Members questioned the Principal Planner on:
· How many of the buildings on the Bartley Wood Business Park were still in operation as industrial/business units and how many were residential units.
· If building number 7 on the plan of the Business Park was empty.
In response, the Committee was advised that:
· The only building where a change of use to residential had taken place was Providence House. The remainder of the units still had an employment use even though a number were vacant.
Members questioned the public speaker in support of the application on:
· The size of the proposed units.
· The traffic movements anticipated on site.
· Why the proposed larger unit needed space for three artic lorries.
· If the application site would be used for a parcel delivery service or distribution centre
During debate:
· Members voiced concerns that the residential use on the business park which is a protected employment site,
· Members noted that there had been a similar situation at Ancells Farm, Fleet where replacement employment use was granted planning permission next to a residential use, similar to Providence House,
· It was stated that Bartley Way was not a wide road, and Members were concerned about the welfare, wellbeing and safety of the residents in Providence House in view of transport and highway issues in the area
· Some Members raised concern about the potential noise levels from the industrial units.
· Concern was expressed regarding the potential for disturbance to the residential unit by the hours of operation of the industrial units.
The recommendations were proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Quarterman. A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill (Chair), Davies, Jones, Makepeace-Browne, Quarterman and Southern (7)
Against: Cllrs Hale, Wildsmith and Worlock (3)
Abstained: (0)
The Committee resolved that:
Resolution A:
The Development Management Committee delegated power to the Executive Director – Place to Grant planning permission, subject to:
· the applicant first entering into a section 106 agreement / undertaking in respect of planning obligations for a financial contribution of £30,000 towards pedestrian/cycling improvements along Griffin Way South; £29,260 to cover travel plan(s) implementation, monitoring and enforcement; and the provision of pedestrian crossings along Bartley Way to Hampshire County Council standards, and
· the planning conditions listed in the Committee report (and as amended in the Addendum).
Resolution B:
The Development Management Committee delegated power to the Executive Director – Place to Refuse planning permission in the event that the Section 106 agreement is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution (or longer period as may be agreed by the Executive Director – Place. Reason: That, in the absence of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the highway related planning obligations, the proposal would be contrary to Polices INF1 and INF3 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 and the aims of the NPPF.
Speaking:
Against the application: Ms Selena Coburn
For the application: Ms Charlotte Grant, on behalf of Bartley Griffin Developments LLP
(3) Application 24/01300/FUL – Land North-East of Winchfield Lodge, Old Potbridge Road, Winchfield
The Senior Planner summarised application 24/02300/FUL for the change of use of land to a mixed use of agricultural and equestrian, together with the erection of stabling and a new access and track at land north-east of Winchfield Lodge, Old Potbridge Road, Winchfield.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
Members were advised that:
· amended plans had been received on 3 December 2024 lowering the height of the machinery barn element from 6.4 metres to 5.9 metres. Condition 2 had been amended to update “Proposed Plans and Elevations (GP/04/24 REV C)’ to REV D
· NPPF had been revised to remove the word “beautiful” in reference to the design of new buildings. This change did not alter the Officers’ assessment overall that the proposed development was acceptable in design terms.
Members questioned the Senior Planner on the size of the stables.
Members questioned the public speaker against the application on the volume of traffic using Old Potbridge Road.
There were no questions for the public speaker in support of the application.
During debate:
· Members queried the reason for the size of the proposed stables as it was felt to be too large for two horses and two ponies.
· The view was expressed that Old Potbridge Road was frequently used as a footpath and there was concern about the implication of the development on safety.
· Members asked whether the proposed planning condition 5 would be enforceable.
The recommendations (as amended at the meeting to include highways conditions) were proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Makepeace-Brown. A recorded vote was taken:
For: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill (Chair), Davies, Jones, Hale, Makepeace-Browne, Quarterman, Wildsmith and Worlock (9)
Against: Cllr Southern (1)
Abstained: 0
The Committee resolved that planning permission be granted, subject to the planning conditions listed in the Committee report with the additional highway condition(s) discussed at the meeting.
Speaking:
Against the application: Mr Simon Naudi
(4) Application 24/01428/FUL – Adsyst Automation Ltd, Yateley Lodge, Reading Road, Yateley
The Senior Planner summarised application 24/01428/FUL for the erection of a covered cycle store at Adsyst Automation Ltd, Yateley Lodge, Reading Road, Yateley.
The Committee was advised that the changes in the revised NPPF 2024 had not affected the assessment of the planning application or the weight attributed to the relevant development plan policies in the Officers’ assessment. The recommendation therefore remained as set out in the agenda report on this application.
The Committee had no questions for the Senior Planner.
The Committee had no questions for the public speaker against the application.
During debate Officers confirmed that the Council’s Enforcement team would investigate issues raised regarding any breaches of planning control at this site.
The recommendation was proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Quarterman and agreed unanimously.
The Committee resolved that planning permission be granted, subject to the planning conditions listed in the Committee report.
Note:
Speaking
Against the application: Mr Paul Thompson
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in