Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 5 February 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Page 6, paragraph 7: amend ‘shared spaces’ to ‘open spaces’.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Ieuan Tuck, David Allen, Jeff Beck and Howard Bairstow declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(2) and 4(3) but reported that, 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 Roger Hunneman declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3) but reported that, 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.

Councillor Julian Swift-Hook declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(2) and 4(3) and reported that, as his interest could be perceived to be prejudicial but was not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate but would not vote on the matter. Councillor Swift-Hook also reported that his use of a computer during the meeting was in order to access information relevant to the application.

All members of the Committee reported that they had been lobbied on Agenda Items 4(2) and 4(3).

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/02741/FUL in respect of the erection of a shed at Orchard Day Nursery.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Anne Harris, Parish Council representative, Ms Marian Spain, objector, Mrs Eva Hughes, supporter, and Mr Andrew Webber, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mrs Anne Harris in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        It was believed that Mr Webber, the owner of the nursery, had purchased the shed in September prior to applying for permission to erect it. Residents considered this to be the most recent action in a series of similar events which had led to a mistrust forming between them and Mr Webber;

·        The shed was planned for laundry and storage of recycling waste and frozen food, and Mrs Harris considered that there might be an environmental health issue related to the proximity of waste and food;

·        Mrs Harris asked, if Members were minded to grant permission for the erection of the shed, whether it could be located behind the main building so as to be out of sight of residents, and whether it could be required to be constructed of a material more sympathetic to the area, such as timber.

Councillor Hunneman asked for confirmation that residents would be able to see the shed in its proposed location as this was not evident from the photographs shown. Mrs Harris responded that she had been assured that neighbouring residents would see the shed from within their homes.

The Chairman asked Officers to verify that the planned use of the shed for food storage and waste was a matter for Environmental Health and not a planning consideration. Derek Carnegie confirmed that this was the case. The Chairman also asked whether a change in the location of the shed would require a second planning application to be submitted. Derek Carnegie confirmed that this would be the case.

Councillor Bairstow asked Mrs Harris if she believed that residents would continue to object if the material used was required to be timber. Mrs Harris replied that she believed residents would still object.

Mrs Marian Spain in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Past activity by the owner in relation to the nursery had given rise to mistrust from residents as to Mr Webber’s intentions. Mrs Spain cited two examples:

·        A new access driveway which had been promised but not built as the owner did not own the land required;

·        A building had been previously erected without planning permission as a storage facility, but was now used as a classroom.

·        Mrs Spain did not believe that the shed would make the nursery a more viable business, as it’s primary purpose was for convenience;

·        Mrs Spain suggested that the proposed uses of the shed were not essential as, for example, laundry could be sent off site;

·        The nursery was not an educational establishment according to definitions within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·        The shed would be taller than surrounding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.(1)

(Councillors Tuck, Allen, Beck and Bairstow declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council who had previously considered the application, however they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council who had previously considered the application, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. He also reported that the agent for this application was also acting for Greenham Parish Council and he therefore had a professional connection. As his interest could be perceived to be prejudicial but was not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate but would not vote on the matter).

(Councillor Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he lived close to the Rugby Club site. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 13/02581/COMIND in respect of a proposed sports and leisure club, with indoor and outdoor swimming pool, with associated parking, access, and landscaping.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Phil Barnet, Parish Council representative, Mr David Mundy and Mr Paul O’Connor, objectors, Mr Sean Bates, supporter, and Mr Steven Smallman, Mr Max Wildsmith and Mr Phil Taylor, applicants/agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Hunneman requested clarity regarding the condition that the sports and leisure club be completed prior to the Greenacres site (Agenda Item 4(2)) being closed. Michael Butler replied that it was recognised that streamlining the availability of the two leisure centres would be desirable but that this could not be guaranteed due to their private ownership. However, talks had taken place with the developers and a condition had been suggested to request a maximum of one year between one leisure facility being demolished and the other opening. The NPPF required planning authorities not to place onerous requirements on developers but to give flexibility, and it was considered that this suggested condition was appropriate.

Councillor Beck commented that conditions had not been included relating to hours of work.

Mr Phil Barnet in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Newbury Town Council (NTC) Planning and Highways Committee had considered this application. Members had voiced mixed views but were, in general, unhappy with the re-siting of a popular sports facility and felt that the matter had not been handled well by the applicants and their agents;

·        There was concern that the number of squash courts was being reduced from three to two and no proper viewing area was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.(2)

(Councillors Tuck, Allen, Beck and Bairstow declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council who had previously considered the application, however they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council who had previously considered the application, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. He also reported that the agent for this application was also acting for Greenham Parish Council and he therefore had a professional connection. As his interest could be perceived to be prejudicial but was not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate but would not vote on the matter).

The Committee agreed that an objector to Agenda Item 4(2) be allowed to speak as he believed he had made it known that he wished to speak prior to the meeting, but had not been included on the list of speakers.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 12/02884/FULEXT in respect of the redevelopment of existing sports facility, and erection of 40 dwellings, with associated parking, garages, access and landscaping.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Phil Barnet, Parish Council representative, Mr David Mundy, objector, Mr Sean Bates, supporter, and Mr Steven Smallman, Mr Max Wildsmith and Mr Phil Taylor, applicants/agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Phil Barnet in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Whilst a development of 40 houses would be a benefit to families, Newbury Town Council (NTC) remained concerned that there would be no affordable housing provided;

·        The parking provision of two cars per dwelling appeared acceptable, however there was concern that this would result in a significant increase in car movements on Greenham Road;

·        NTC were concerned about the effect of root disturbance on surrounding trees during the construction on the site.

Mr David Mundy in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        The provision of a further 40 dwellings was a positive action, but Mr Mundy believed that it would disenfranchise the 1800 members of Greenacres, in particular senior citizens who considered the centre a community hub;

·        Mr Mundy was also concerned that no affordable housing was being proposed.

The Chairman requested confirmation that Mr Mundy would want a short gap between the availability of the two leisure facilities. Mr Mundy requested a seamless transition.

Mr Sean Bates advised the Committee that he no longer wished to speak in relation to this application as he had raised all relevant points during the previous application.

Mr Steven Smallman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        In Mr Smallman’s opinion, this application, and that for Monks Lane were inextricably  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.(3)

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Western Area Planning Committee.

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Western Area.

Purpose: To agree future site visit arrangements.

The Committee agreed that future site visits would be held on Thursday mornings at 8am during British Summer Time and at 9am during Greenwich Mean Time.