Issue - meetings

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Vickers made a clarifying statement to the effect that he lived within approximately 200m of the site and in a Zone 3 property, however he did not believe this was a conflict of personal interest. He noted that he was on record as having voted against officer recommendation at the Western Area Planning Committee on 5 February 2020, where a similar issue had been raised and that he was predisposed to opposing officer recommendation on this matter. However he was open to persuasion and had not predetermined his view on this item.)

(Councillor Jeff Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that his commercial offices were within 100m of the property. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/00152/FUL in respect of the demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 2x semi-detached dwellings and 1x detached dwelling with associated works.

2.     Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. He drew the Committees attention to a previous application which had been refused by officers, and dismissed at appeal. The officer’s recommendation had been led by the Inspectors previous decision on a proposal for a development in a similar location and design.

3.     As proposed site fell within a Flood Zone 3, policy CS16 applied and a sequential test was required. A sequential test was a process to access whether there were any alternative sites within the whole district which were less likely to flood that could be developed in preference to this site. Once these sites had been used or were unavailable, then sites more likely to flood could be considered. This process was a way to manage risk and to direct development to areas that were least likely to flood, and applied to new developments.

4.     As the application would result in a net gain of one house, officers carried out the sequential test over the whole of the district. The agent disagreed with this approach and felt that only Newbury, Thatcham and the eastern urban areas of the district should be included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19