Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 23 August 2017 and 8 May 2018.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 23^rd August 2017 and 8^th May 2018 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.

Councillor Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1)  by virtue of the fact that he had had a discussion with Network Rail in the last couple of weeks. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application No. 18/00837/FULEXT in respect of the proposed erection of 30 flats with associated car parking and coffee shop with external amenity space.

Application number 18/00837/FULEXT had been submitted to the Council on 19^th March 2018. It was a full application to redevelop the existing temporary private car park at the Station Yard, to a new five storey scheme of 30 flats with associated under croft parking (33 spaces), with nine of the flats (30%) being affordable. Associated with the proposal was a communal amenity space to the rear, and a new coffee shop for the public on the west aspect of the site. Vehicular access would continue to be from Station Road.

The Planning Officer advised that this was a brownfield site which was located south of the railway line in Hungerford. The levels in the area had a considerable height difference as the land to the south was some 5 or 6 metres higher than that on the car park itself. However, the difference in levels worked well as it allowed the undercroft parking to slot in to the development. The application site abutted a local conservation area and therefore any development on the site should fully respect the setting and value of that conservation area without detriment.

The whole of the application site was within a defined protected employment area [PEA] as designated under adopted policy CS9 in the Core Strategy. This meant that any non-employment generating use approved on the site would not be consistent with that policy - housing was not employment generating, (beyond initial construction), so would, if approved, be contrary to the Council’s policy. The Council’s constitution required that the District Planning Committee consider applications where there was a possibility of conflict with a policy that would undermine the Development Plan and where there was a district-wide public interest.

In terms of access and parking, Officers were satisfied that the net loss of just three car parking spaces from the public network rail car park in the Yard would not be so harmful as to merit a recommendation of refusal. There had been concerns around the poor pedestrian routes to and from the site up to and across Station Road. Highway Officers considered it was essential to ensure a safe pedestrian route to and from the site and further detailed plans would be submitted by the applicant to cover this point. It was noted that 96 parking spaces would be lost in the temporary car park but that would also be the case should an employment application be submitted.

Concerns had been raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(1)