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 where Item 4(1) had been discussed.  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 Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Local Ward Member. 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.)

(Councillors Carolyne Culver and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01911/FULD in respect of the land adjoining, 11 Pond Close, Newbury.

2.     Ms Cheyanne Kirby, Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, (Team Leader, Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the proposal had been considered on three previous occasions, and only refused on highway grounds as a legal agreement needed to be submitted before roads could be widened. It was not refused for any other highway reasons. It should then also be noted that the current proposal was smaller than previous submissions. Seven spaces were required to comply with the Council’s car parking standards, and nine spaces were proposed. Cycle storage was provided along with it electric vehicle (EV) charging points. No new accesses were provided with this proposal.

4.     Mr Goddard noted that Pond Close was narrow, at just over four metres wide. To alleviate this concern, it was proposed to widen a section of 30m at the front of the site. Existing dwellings to the south had onsite car parking, however nos. 11 and 12 parked on the street. Therefore to allow for space for emergency vehicles, Highways Officers insisted that Pond Close be widened along this section to 4.8m, which was the standard width for all new estate roads. There was also to be a 1.5m wide footway for pedestrians of along the entirety of the frontage. He would expect a maximum of 20 vehicle movements a day for the site and suggested that this was not a significant impact and he reminded Members of paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), that stated that planning applications should only be refused on highway grounds if the impact was severe. In his view, he did not regard the impact as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25