Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 28^th June 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 June 2017 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 Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as their interests were personal or an 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 Dennis Benneyworth declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as his interest was 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.

(Councillors Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council, and in the cases of Councillor Beck and Pick, members of the Planning and Highways Committee. 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.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/00223/FULEXT in respect of  the erection of 71 dwellings with associated access roads and car parking, pedestrian access and parking with landscaping at land on north and east side of Pyle Hill, Greenham.

2.         Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers firmly recommended the Committee grant planning permission with the completion of an associated s 106 planning obligation.

3.         Paul Goddard advised that Highways Officers were content with the layout and access of the proposed development, which met the Council’s parking standards. Whilst there would be an increase in traffic around the site, he did not consider the impact to be severe.

4.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Lucy Crofts, objector, and Mr Michael Cleveland, Mr Steven Smallman and Mr Peter Shepherd, applicant/agent addressed the Committee on this application.

5.         Mrs Crofts in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The site was included in the Council’s Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) and she wanted to protect the remaining agricultural land in the area from future development.

·                     The decision on the application should be deferred until the master planning for all the sites under policy HSA4 in the HSA DPD was completed.

·                     There was a lack of clarity about how the land adjacent to the site reserved for ecological benefit would be achieved under the S106 agreement. BBOWT were likely to be receptive to managing the land.

·                     There might be different ways to apply a covenant to the land which should be explored.

·                     The four sites under HSA4 would impinge on the green infrastructure which Policy CS18 in the Council’s Core Strategy sought to protect.

·                     BBOWT, Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council objected to the application due to the implications for green space.

6.         Councillor Jeff Beck asked whether it would be possible to defer a decision on the application. Michael Butler advised that the Committee could choose to defer but this would not be the advice from officers as it could delay the delivery of affordable and market housing. Officers were satisfied to recommend the application as a standalone application and it was not possible to force the multiple landowners with sites under HSA4 to submit a joint application. Derek Carnegie added that the HSA DPD created a framework for new housing in the District and the pace  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.(1)

 (Councillor Dennis Benneyworth declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he owned a property which neighboured one of the objectors. 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.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Applications 17/00597/FULD and 17/00598/LBC2 in respect of the change of use and conversion of public house into 1 and 2 bedroom flats at The Malt Shovel, Upper Lambourn, Hungerford, Berkshire.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Robert Ballin and Ms Vivian Griffith, objectors, and Mr Chris Parker and Mr Dennis Alston, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers consequently recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.         Mrs Griffith and Mr Ballin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The Malt Shovel was formerly a popular business which attracted a variety of customers.

·                     The business had only been open 11 months in the past 3 years and might be viable if opened more regularly.

·                     The previous owner had been making a profit until he sold the pub to the current owner for £600k. The current owner made a loss in his first month of trading and put the pub back on the market.

·                     Loss of the pub would have a detrimental impact, included the loss of a local employer. It would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework to allow the pub to close.

·                     There were a number of people willing to invest time and money into a rescue plan to keep the Malt Shovel operating as a pub.

·                     The viability study had been commissioned by the applicant and was flawed.

·                     The Malt Shovel was a focal point for the local area and no other pub was in walking distance for residents of Upper Lambourn.

·                     The marketing was flawed and was at too high a price. Requests for viewings had been declined.

5.         Councillor Bryant asked whether the objectors had considered registering the pub as an asset of community value. Mr Ballin advised that the leader of the project was in hospital but would be interested in doing so.

6.         Councillor Pick enquired upon the population of Upper Lambourn; Mr Ballin advised that approximately 300 people lived in the village.

7.         Mr Parker and Mr Alston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Pub closures were an emotional issue and the owner, Mr McCabe, had invested a lot of effort and £140k in capital into trying to run the pub successfully, which he had intended to do until retirement.

·         The price had been set by the agents, a national company, and while no offers had been received the agent was confident  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.(2)