Agenda and minutes

Following a minute’s silence Councillor Gordon Lundie paid tribute to Councillor David Holtby who had passed away on the 10 June 2013.

Tributes were also paid by Councillors Paul Hewer, Jeff Brooks and Andrew Rowles.  Councillor Holtby was remembered as a true representative of his community, an honourable, caring and kind man, a true friend, an ‘Officer and a Gentleman’, fun loving and easy to like, a champion of the less fortunate and a ‘true people’s champion’. Councillor Hewer said that the world would be a much sadder place without him.

To receive notice of any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor Emma Webster declared an interest in Agenda Items 8, 15, 17 and 20(b) and reported that, as her interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, she would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of these matters.

Councillor Roger Hunneman declared an interest in Agenda Item 15 and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared an interest in Agenda Item 17 and reported that, as his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

The Chairman requested nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman of Council. In response to this request Councillor Jeff Beck was nominated by Councillor Adrian Edwards and the nomination was seconded by Councillor Quentin Webb. There were no further nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman.

Councillor Edwards in proposing Councillor Beck noted that Councillor Beck was hard working, conscientious, knowledgeable, impartial, courteous, considerate, meticulous and dignified and he was therefore a very suitable nominee for this role.

Councillor Webb stated that Councillor Beck was a worthy nomination and he was therefore pleased to second the nomination.

RESOLVED that Councillor Jeff Beck be appointed Vice-Chairman of Council until May 2014. 

The Vice-Chairman read and signed the Declaration of Acceptance of Office. Councillor Beck thanked the Council for electing him. He noted that this was a huge honour and he would support Councillor Chopping to the best of his ability. Councillor Beck thanked Councillors Edwards and Webb for nominating him and thanked his fellow Councillors for putting their trust in him.

The Chairman to report on functions attended since the last meeting and other matters of interest to Members.

The Chairman reported that he had attended 47 events since the last Council meeting and that, each had been interesting, informative and impressive. The Chairman thanked all those Members (the late Councillor David Holtby, Councillor Peter Argyle, Councillor Pamela Bale and Councillor Adrian Edwards) that had attended events on his behalf when he was unable to do so.

The Chairman reported that he had been particularly inspired by the work of, and with, West Berkshire's youth organisations. He felt that the effort and enthusiasm of the District’s young people was inspiring and something all Councillors should be extremely proud of. In particular he noted that 21 young people from the District would be receiving gold Duke of Edinburgh awards later that year.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor James Podger the newly elected Ward Member for Hungerford to the Chamber.

Councillor Julian Swift-Hook presented a petition containing 1292 signatures relating to Greenham Control Tower. Councillor Swift-Hook was informed that the petition would be considered as part of the paperwork for the item on the Greenham Control Tower being considered by the Executive at its meeting on the 17 October 2013.

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 8 by virtue of the nature of her employment. As her interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest she left the meeting and took no part in the debate on the matter).

Councillor Webster left the meeting at 7.36pm and returned at 7.41pm.

There were no public questions received relating to items not included on this agenda.

In accordance with paragraph 4.12.1 of the Constitution the following questions were submitted in relation to Item 15 Sandleford Park Supplementary Planning Document:

(a)               Question submitted to the Executive Member for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside by Mr Tony Hammond:

‘The Statement of Consultation for the Sandleford Supplementary Plan contains a submission from Paul Goddard regarding addition access points to the development and includes the statement:

"An access onto the A343 Andover Road would reduce development traffic onto Monks Lane by 43 to 46% that would reduce traffic through the Andover Road / Monks Lane / Essex Street Mini Roundabouts and fronting Parkhouse School by some 300 vehicles for both peak travel periods."

Can the Council tell us where this traffic has gone?’

The question received a response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

(b)              Question submitted to the Executive Member for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside by Mr Peter Norman:

‘Does the Council now accept that it is unrealistic to reduce the number of car journeys arising from the Sandleford development to a level that would allow the site to function with only two all vehicular access points to Monks Lane?’

The question received a response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

(c)               Question submitted to the Executive Member for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside by Mr Peter Norman:

‘The early ecological reports from the promoters of Sandleford laid great emphasis on the fact that years of neglect had reduced the bio-diversity of the area.  Can the Council confirm that as part of the SPD there will be a commitment in establishing a Parkland to restore the bio diversity of what will be left of Sandleford, through the restoration of hedgerows where these have fallen into disrepair, clearance of ponds and other such measures - i.e. that there will be proactive management rather than just maintaining the status quo?’

The question received a response from the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services and Countryside.

Councillor Tony Linden arrived at 7.40pm.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Licensing Committee had not met.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Personnel Committee had not met.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Governance and Audit Committee had met on 8 July 2013 and 2 September 2013.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the District Planning Committee had met on 18 September 2013.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission had met on 21 May 2013, 21 July 2013, 02 September 2013 and 17 September 2013.

The Council noted that, since the last meeting, the Standards Committee had met on 01 July 2013.

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 15 by virtue of the nature of her employment. As her interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest she left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor Roger Hunneman declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 15 by virtue of the fact that he owned a property that overlooked the Sandleford site. As his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

Councillors Emma Webster and Roger Hunneman left the meeting at 7.42pm.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 15) which set out the representations received in response to the consultation on the Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) undertaken between 22 March and 03 May 2013, the revisions needed in light of these representations and the adoption of the ensuing SPD.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Virginia von Celsing:

“That the Council resolves that:

a)                 No new information or evidence has arisen through the consultation to warrant major changes being made to the Supplementary Planning Document although a number of minor changes have been made.

b)                 The Council's responses to the representations received as set out in Appendix A are agreed.

c)                  The Sandleford Park Supplementary Planning Document as attached in Appendix C is adopted in accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).

d)                 delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning and Countryside to agree any minor typographical and formatting refinements to the Sandleford Park Supplementary Planning Document before publication. ”

Councillor Cole in introducing the report thanked the Planning Policy Team led by Bryan Lyttle and Liz Alexander for the work and diligence they had put into producing this report as well as the reports associated with items 16 and 17 on this agenda.

Councillor Cole explained that Sandleford Park was allocated through the Core Strategy as a strategic site for up to 2,000 dwellings with associated infrastructure. The Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Sandleford Park site had been prepared to set out in more detail how the site would be delivered, taking into account the opportunities and constraints of the site as well as the outcomes of the comprehensive evidence base. The SPD could only supplement adopted policy CS3 of the Core Strategy - it could not provide new details or set new policy. Once adopted the SPD would be used in conjunction with the Development Plan, holding significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of any planning application and/or appeal on this site.

On 21^st March 2013 the Council’s Executive had approved the draft Supplementary Planning Document for a six week period of public consultation which took place from 22^nd March 2013 to 3^rd May 2013. A consultation event also took place at Newbury Rugby Club on 18^th April 2013. Overall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) that set out the representations received in response to the Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) consultation undertaken between 15^th February and the 02 April 2013, revisions to the SPD arising out of the consultation and adoption of the ensuing SPD.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Virginia von Celsing:

“That Council resolves that:

1.             No new information or evidence has arisen through the consultation to warrant major changes being made to the Supplementary Planning Document.

2.             The Council’s responses to the representations received as set out in Appendix A are agreed.

3.             The Pirbright Institute site, Compton, Supplementary Planning Document as attached in Appendix C is adopted in accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).

4.             Delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning and Countryside to agree any minor typographical and formatting refinements to the Pirbright Institute site, Compton, Supplementary Planning Document before publication.”

Councillor Cole in introducing the item reported that the SPD for the site had been produced to supplement existing planning policies within the West Berkshire Local Plan and to facilitate the comprehensive redevelopment of the site which had been identified as an opportunity site in the Adopted West Berkshire Core Strategy. The purpose of the SPD was to establish the principles and parameters to guide and manage any future development of this complex site.

Consultation on the SPD had taken place over a six week period from 15^th February 2013 to 2^nd April 2013. Overall the Council had received 28 representations on the draft SPD but Councillor Cole confirmed that no new information or evidence had arisen through the consultation period to warrant major changes being made to the SPD. Councillor Cole thanked respondents for taking part in the consultation and she felt that their input had been very valuable.

Councillor Keith Woodhams stated that he was pleased to see that the site had come forward as it was a brownfield site but he had concerns about access to the site and would therefore not be able to vote in favour of approval of the SPD.

Councillor Tony Vickers made reference to the letter received by all Members from Barton Willmore earlier that day and sought reassurance that the Council would resist the request to reduce the number of affordable homes on the site.

Councillor Virginia von Celsing acknowledged that this was a sensitive site as it was located in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and it was intrinsically linked with the village of Compton. She thanked both the villagers and the Parish Council for the active role they had taken in the preparation of the SPD.

Councillor Cole noted that the residents had not raised any issues in regard to the access to the site and they were happy with the road access arrangements set out in the SPD. She therefore refuted Councillor Woodhams assertions about access.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the nature of her employment. As her interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest she left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that property he owned had a large amount of minerals on it. As his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

Councillors Emma Webster and Tim Metcalfe left the meeting at 8.20pm.

Councillors Gordon Lundie and Keith Woodhams left the meeting at 8.20pm and returned at 8.22pm.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) concerning the adoption of the revised Local Development Scheme (LDS) for the Local Plan. The report also sought delegated authority for the Head of Planning and Countryside, in consultation with the Leader, appropriate Portfolio Holder and Opposition Spokesman to approve variations of the LDS. In addition the report asked Members to grant authority to consult on the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)/ Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Scoping Reports for the West Berkshire Minerals and Waste Development Plan Document (DPD) and the Site Allocations and Delivery DPD in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Directive. Finally the report asked Members to consider the process of Council approval of the Issues and Options stage in the preparation of the West Berkshire Minerals and Waste DPD and the Site Allocations and Delivery DPD.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Virginia von Celsing:

That:

“a)       the Council adopt the revised Local Development Scheme for the West Berkshire Local Plan.

b)        That delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning and Countryside (in consultation with the Leader, appropriate Portfolio Holder and Opposition Spokesperson) to approve subsequent variations to the LDS.

c) i)     the Council approve consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Reports for the West Berkshire Minerals and Waste Development Plan Document (DPD) and the Site Allocations and Delivery DPD in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Directive.

    ii)     delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning and Countryside to agree any minor typographical and formatting refinements to the Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Reports for the West Berkshire Minerals and Waste DPD and the Site Allocations and Delivery DPD before publication.

d)        delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning and Countryside (in consultation with the Leader, appropriate Portfolio Holder and Opposition Spokesperson) to carry out the issues and Options consultation as part of the preparation of the West Berkshire Minerals and Waste DPD and the Site Allocations and Delivery DPD."

Councillor Cole in introducing the item reported that the publication of a Local Development Scheme (LDS) for the West Berkshire Local Plan was a statutory requirement together with the need to undertake a Strategic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) following a review of the Scheme of Delegation.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Beck and seconded by Councillor Gordon Lundie:

That the Council:

“agrees the amendments as set out in the report”.

Councillor Beck in introducing the item reported that this was an opportunity to refresh the Scheme in light of recent legislative changes. The Governance and Audit Committee had agreed to recommend the changes to Council when it met on the 02 September 2013.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 19) following a review of the Council’s Petitions Protocol in accordance with the agreed timescales for doing so.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Beck and seconded by Councillor Gordon Lundie:

That the Council:

“approves the minor amendments to Appendix C to Part 13 Codes and Protocols of the Council’s Constitution”.

Councillor Beck in introducing the item reported that, at the time the original protocol was adopted, it had been agreed that the protocol would be agreed in September 2013. Since the adoption of the protocol the Council had received 51 petitions. No major issues had been experienced with the protocol and therefore the revision only included a few minor amendments. The Governance and Audit Committee had agreed to recommend the changes to Council when it met on the 02 September 2013.

Councillor Jeff Brooks commented that the Governance and Audit Committee had not agreed a recommendation put forward by the Liberal Democrat Group to lower the threshold for petitions which would trigger a debate at full Council from 5,000 to 1,500 signatures. He felt that this was a missed opportunity and that West Berkshire Council’s threshold was out of sync when compared to the other Berkshire Unitary authorities. He was puzzled as to why this reasonable request had been rejected.

Councillor Roger Hunneman left the meeting at 8.36am and returned at 8.40pm.

Councillor Gordon Lundie responded that the Executive had no view on the level the threshold should be set at but that a persuasive case had not been made at the Governance and Audit Committee.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 20(b) by virtue of the nature of her employment. As her interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest she left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

Councillor Emma Webster left the meeting at 9.13pm.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 20(b) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Royce Longton relating to the closure of public houses.

The Chairman informed the Council that should the motion be approved, under Procedural Rule 4.5.8 it would be referred to the Heads of Planning and Countryside and Strategic Support to draft a report that would be brought to the December 2013 Council meeting after being considered by the Planning Policy Task Group.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Royce Longton and seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers:

“This Council believes that well-run public houses make a significant, positive contribution to the social and economic well being of communities. The decline in numbers of such pubs, especially in rural areas within West Berkshire, is therefore a matter of considerable regret.

This Council therefore resolves to use its powers and influence to support public houses in the following ways:

1.                 Encourage and support communities to apply to list pubs as Assets of Community Value;

2.                 Ensure that pubs of historic or architectural interest, that currently lack a statutory designation, are included in the Council’s Local Heritage Listing;

3.                 Promote and champion award winning local pubs;

4.                 Lobby the Government to close the loopholes that currently, for example, allow the demolition of pubs, or their change of use to other commercial activities, without planning permission;

5.                 Investigate the use of the CAMRA Public House Viability Test as a tool when considering planning applications involving pubs;

6.                 Lobby local MPs and other political representatives to support CAMRA's Fair Deal For Your Local campaign;

7.                 Lobby the Government to take measures to reduce the price differential for beer between pubs and supermarkets, for example by reducing the tax on beer, or introducing a minimum retail price.” 

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED that it would be referred to the Heads of Planning and Countryside and Strategic Support to draft a report that would be brought to the December 2013 Council meeting after being considered by the Planning Policy task Group.

Councillor Emma Webster returned to the meeting at 9.16pm.