Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 13 December 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2017 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Page 9, point 53: The Chairman asked for it to be noted that he had asked for consideration to be given to a green car park so as to match the green road and soften the overall design.

Councillor Anthony Pick informed the Committee that Mr Jeremy Holden-Bell had unexpectedly passed away. He had been the Vice-Chairman of the Newbury Society since 1994, and the Chairman since 2009. He had been the principal commentator on planning. If Members wished to send their condolences, they could do so by contacting the new Chairman, Dr David Peacock.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman sent his condolences to the family of Mr Holden-Bell.

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, Billy Drummond, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (1), and reported that, 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.

(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 its 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.)

(Councillor Billy Drummond declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4 (1.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/02524/FULEXT in respect of the erection of 36 dwellings with associated roads, amenity open space, and access to New Road on land West of New Road, North of Pyle Hill, Newbury.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Lucy Crofts’, objector, and Mr Steve Smallman (Pro vision), Mr John Hanlon (Glanville), Ms Judith Giles (BSG Ecology), applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Michael Butler introduced the report and update sheet 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 justified. Officers on balance recommended that Committee approve planning permission.

4.            He drew the Committee’s attention to additional conditions included in the update sheet which would be required should the Members be minded to approve the application.

5.            The Chairman noted that there was not a representative from the Parish Council and that this was disappointing. Councillor Billy Drummond explained that an extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council had been called that evening.

6.            Ms Crofts in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      Ms Crofts’ objections to the other sites in this area were rejected on the premise of site allocation and ownership. However, Rivar and David Wilson homes either owned or had a controlling interest in all the sites. She therefore saw no reason why the sites could not be brought together. The developer’s statement in 2012 was that the sites would be comprehensive, coherent and have major community benefits; creating a cohesive neighbourhood, which would protect and enhance the countryside.

·      She felt strongly that it was a cop-out for Officers to say that this master-plan could not be delivered because of land ownership.

·      She questioned what the large swathe of private land in between the sites was for. Currently, it was the desired route for children travelling between playgrounds. Many people walked their dogs there. People ignored the private land signs. She felt the Council had a short-sighted approach and should resolve the problem of land ownership and put in the necessary footpaths.

·      The landscape was open grassland and Ms Crofts was concerned that the large number of trees suggested in the planting design, would detrimentally change the area, for the people who used it and the wildlife it sustained.

·      A fellow Greenham resident had asked for clarification on the meaning of the hedging term ’gapping up’.

·      She asked that the developer provide the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.(1)

There were no declarations of interest received.

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02533/OUTD in respect of an outline application for the erection of a single dwelling. Matters for consideration siting and scale other matters reserved on land adjacent to 4 Croft Lane, Newbury.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Stuart Atkinson and Ms Karen Barlow, objector, and Mr Tim Barton, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Derek Carnegie introduced the report and update sheet to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was unjustified. Officers on balance recommended that Committee refuse planning permission.

4.            The Chairman asked Officers to confirm if the road was adopted and to summarise the highways section of the report. Paul Goddard explained that the road was not adopted. His recommendation for refusal was based on the sub-standard sight lines from the access to the site. The speed survey measured cars as travelling at 18.7mph downhill (needing a 22.5m sight line, but being able to achieve only 14m) and 19.5mph uphill (needing a 24m sight line, but being able to achieve only 4-5m) past the property.

5.            The sight lines were sub-standard in both directions and he was concerned by the width of the road and it’s gradient. It was a private street, which was turned into a cul-de-sac by a locked gate at the end. This meant that it was a public highway, as the lane had had an unfettered access over many years, As a private street, the maintenance of the street was the responsibility of the frontages, however as the Highway Authority, the Council, had powers to enforce that the street was maintained adequately.

6.            Councillor Clive Hooker inquired who owned the junction, as it was included in the red line of the application. Paul Goddard explained that it was included to show that the applicant had right of access. Councillor Hooker continued by bringing the photograph on page 42 of the report to the Committees attention, to indicate that the splays of many of the existing houses were obstructed by shrubs.

7.            Councillor Paul Bryant asked if there was a detailed drawing of the street. Paul Goddard directed Members to the detailed drawing displayed in the room so as to understand the positioning of trees, lampposts and driveways.

8.            Mr Atkinson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

9.            He asked the Committee to refer to point 5.3 on page 36, and that the picture of the plan of the house to be displayed on the screens.

·      Mr Atkinson’s principle concern was the sight line from the property.

·      The new property would be overbearing.

·      There would be a detrimental impact to his retaining wall.

·      It was an unsafe access.

·      The different ground levels warranted closer scrutiny.

·      There would be additional load placed on the retaining wall, that it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.