Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 28^th September 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 28^th September 2016 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth, Paul Bryant, Virginia von Celsing, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Paul Hewer and Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as their interest was a personal or a other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Hilary Cole introduced the Committee to all those present and advised that this was a quasi-judicial committee with formal set procedures and conduct. Firstly, the Planning Officer would introduce the application followed by presentations from the Highways Development Control Team, the Principal Highways Engineer and the Planning and Transport Policy Manager. Only those persons who had pre-registered would be allowed to speak and the time limit of five minutes for each category of speakers would be strictly adhered to. All speakers were requested to remain in their seats to answer any questions from Members of the Committee seeking clarification of what had already been said. It was not permissible for Members or speakers to introduce any new topics during this time. Following all presentations the Planning Committee Members would consider, question and seek clarification on the application in order to reach a decision which might or might not agree with the Planning Officers’ recommendation.

The District Planning Committee considered recommendations deemed by the Development Control Manager and/or his representative to have:

·         A possible conflict with a policy that would undermine the Local Plan or the Local Development Framework;

·         A district-wide public interest; or

·         The possibility for claims for significant costs against the Council.

The application being considered that evening met two of these tests/criteria. As part of the Council’s constitutional arrangements there was provision for Officers (Head of Planning and Countryside and/or Development Control Manager) or Members to request that the District Planning Committee should make a decision on applications which were of district-wide importance and relevance. As the decision to refuse planning permission was contrary to the policies of the emerging Development Plan Document, those decisions had district-wide planning implications that went beyond the local area concerns of the Western Areas Planning Committee, so as a consequence it was appropriate that the application was referred to the District Planning Committee for a final determination. This was a normal and appropriate constitutional process.

The role of the Local Planning Authority was to determine any valid planning application using local and national planning policy. The Committee’s role was not to suggest alterations to schemes, whether they were a good idea or needed, whether they were too costly or whether there were alternative uses.

It was noted that a large number of apologies for the meeting had been received but the Chairman reassured the meeting that those Members substituting all sat on Planning Committees and had the necessary experience to enable them to determine the application.

It was noted that all Members of the Committee had received a briefing document from the developer and all had been lobbied on the application.

(Councillors Dennis Benneyworth, Paul Bryant, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Paul Hewer and Virginia von Celsing declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were all Members of the Western Area Planning Committee where this application had been heard previously. However, they confirmed that they would listen to all the evidence afresh prior to determining the application. As their interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Paul Hewer declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he worked for Sovereign Housing Association but it was noted that a provider had not yet been chosen for the affordable housing element of the application. As his interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillors Alan Macro and Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been a Member of the Planning Policy Task Group when the inclusion of this site in the DPD had been discussed. As their interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Jeanette Clifford declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of the Newbury Town Council Planning Committee. As her interest was personal and not an other registrable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 16/01489/OUTMAJ in respect of the erection of 75 dwellings with associated access and open space improvements.

In introducing the report, Michael Butler, Principal Planning Officer, advised that the Western Area Planning Committee had considered a report on 23^rd November 2016 regarding the application as identified above. In summary this application was for the erection of 75 dwellings on a greenfield site, on land to the east of Stoney Lane in Cold Ash Parish. The land was outside any identified settlement boundary as noted in saved policy HSG1 in the Saved District Local Plan. Accordingly, in “normal” circumstances, there would be an automatic presumption against such new housing in the countryside, unless for exceptional reasons as allowed for in policy - such as agriculturally tied dwellings.

Policy HSA3 in the Housing Site Allocations DPD of November 2015, set out a housing allocation on the application site for up to 75 dwellings, including 40% affordable units (30 in number), with access to be derived from Stoney Lane which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.(1)