Agenda and minutes

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.

It was noted that all Members of the Committee had been lobbied on agenda item 4(1). The Chairman reminded all those in attendance at the meeting that any information received within five working days of the meeting would be disregarded.

(It was noted that that all Members had been lobbied on item 4(1). All were reminded that any information received within five working days of the meeting would be disregarded.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application No. 19/01063/COMIND in respect of the construction of class A1 foodstore, car parking and access and landscaping.

Mr Michael Butler, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The Development Control Manager had decided that the application should be brought to Committee for consideration due to the high level of public interest.

·         It was a full planning application and therefore if approval was granted, there would be no further reserved matters applications.

·         There would be a right hand turning lane into the site.

·         If the application was approved the site could be developed by any discount food retailer.

·         The height of the proposed building would be seven metres.

·         Mr Butler showed a plan, which highlighted the site with a red line. If approved, conditions could only be applied within this red line.

·         On the proposed plans the western and southern boundaries were within the red line and there would be a minimum of a 5m wide buffer strip in these areas. He also pointed out an additional area of proposed structural landscaping which fell outside of the red line and would need to be secured by a S106 agreement prior to planning permission being granted should Members be minded to approve the application.

·         Mr Butler ran through the responses from the statutory consultees. West Berkshire Council’s Planning Policy Service has stated that the application did not comply with Development Plan Policy because the site was greenfield and was outside of the settlement boundary.

(Councillor Jeremy Cottam arrived at 6.50pm however, as he was late arriving he was unable to take part in discussions or vote on the matter but remained as an observer).

·         The total number of letters of support for the application was 880. 61 letters of objection had been received and 13 ambiguous letters, stating that a discount store was required but not in the location proposed. Total representations amounted to 954.

·         Regarding visual impact,  one of the Planning Officer’s reasons for refusal corresponded to visual impact of the proposal and was detailed under section eight of the report.

·         Regarding a sequential test, if the application was assessed with regard to West Berkshire the nearest village to the proposed store would be Aldermaston, which was two miles away. On these grounds the application would fail the sequential test, however, it was not felt that this was reasonable. If the site was assessed with regard to its location adjoining Basingstoke and Deane’s border, it was deemed very sustainable as it was just outside the settlement boundary of Tadley and therefore Officers were satisfied that the application met the sequential test.

·         Regarding retail impact, a retail impact assessment had been submitted by the applicant. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that although retail need was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.(1)