Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 12 June 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2019 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, Hilary Cole, Clive Hooker, Claire Rowles and Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (1). Councillors Adrian Abbs, Jeff Beck, Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Items 4 (4) and (5). Councillor Jeff Beck declared an interest in Agenda Item 4 (6). Councillor Clive Hooker had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4 (1). Councillors Hilary Cole and Claire Rowles had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3). Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers had been lobbied on Agenda Items 4 (4) and (5). Councillor Jeff Beck had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4 (6). Councillor Claire Rowles had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4 (7). However, they reported that, as their interest was a 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 Tony Vickers, Vice-Chair, in the Chair.

(Councillors Jeff Beck, Hilary Cole, Clive Hooker, Claire Rowles and Howard Woollaston declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were acquainted with the applicant who was a former District Councillor and in Councillor Cole’s case there had been a close working relationship. Councillor Hooker was also the Ward Member and had been lobbied. 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 and Councillor Hooker would step down from the Chair for the item.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/01035/HOUSE in respect of the proposed demolition of a porch and single storey extensions, new single storey extension and other alterations at Gilberts, Hill Green, Leckhampstead.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Jonathan Harker (agent), addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Gemma Kirk introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended that the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.    Mr Harker in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Officer concerns over the impact of the extension lacked substance as it would barely be visible outside the plot and the hedge would be maintained to ensure screening.

·         The proposed extension was lower than the existing extension and would be physically subservient to the main cottage.

·         The proposed slate roof had been approved at the pre-application stage and the character of the extension would reflect the existing building.

·         The flat rooved part of the extension would sit under the original thatch roof of the main cottage and provide a more attractive join than there was with the current extension.

·         The extension would be more sustainable with a new boiler and more energy efficient insulation. The south side of the property would provide the main living accommodation.

·         Internal partitions which caused the property to be delisted would be removed.

·         The application conformed to the Council’s Policy C6.

5.    Councillor Adrian Abbs asked what accommodation would be provided on the north side of the property. Mr Harker advised it would be used to the utility room and other services.

6.    Councillor Abbs asked Mr Harker to expand on the original extensions who advised that the porch had been added to the property and the existing rear extension abutted the property at an awkward angle.

7.    Councillor Hooker in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         The applicant had employed the services of a respected architect who was an expert in historic buildings to draw up the plans.

·         The applicant withdrew the first application for a two storey extension and submitted revised plans for an extension of a smaller scale.

·         The Conservation Officer did not support the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(1)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda after it was published.

(Councillors Hilary Cole and Claire Rowles declared that they had been lobbied on this item.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/01441/HOUSE in respect of the proposed demolition of garden store, external alterations to the Eastern Pavilion including the provision of roof lights (retrospective), erection of a new Western Pavilion to provide home office facilities at ground level, guest accommodation at first floor and a basement level garage at Hayward Green Farm, West Woodhay, Newbury, Berkshire.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Harry Henderson, Parish Meeting representative, Mr Ewan Christian and Mr John Handy, objectors, and Mr Steven Sensecall, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

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

4.     Paul Goddard advised that there were no highways issues.

5.     Mr Henderson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The Code of Planning stated that planning effected people’s lives and that the process should be transparent to avoid suspicion of impropriety. The Parish Meeting had submitted 27 complaints relating to maladministration of the application by officers.

·           The applicant had refused to engage with the local community.

·           The planning officer had not been impartial in his assessment of the validity of the Section 106 agreement made in 2005.

·           Parish Meeting representatives had been excluded from a site meeting with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Board.

·           The hydrology report excluded the main issues impacting the site.

·           The applicant had no regard for the planning process or the community.

·           The planning officer had not been impartial.

·           The property would be visible from a footpath in the AONB.

6.     Councillor Phil Barnett asked if it was correct that the community had been ostracised from all consultation; Mr Henderson advised that he felt that was the case.

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked what was on the site previously. Mr Henderson advised that an agriculturally tied building had been built on the site which was later removed. The current property was over seven times the footprint.

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Mr Henderson to expand on his complaint regarding officers’ conduct. Sharon Armour stated that details of complaints regarding officers were not relevant to the Committee and Members should focus on planning merits.

9.     Mr Christian and Mr Handy in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           No effort had been made by the applicant to engage with the local community so the Committee should not look favourable on the application.

·           The application if approved would lead to overdevelopment of the site with a seven-fold increase in floor area which was excessive.

·           The planning authority had failed to consult the AONB Board properly and Councillors had deferred the application in order to ensure this took place.

·           The Parish Meeting were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(3)

(Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 by virtue of the fact that Councillors Abbs was the Chair of Greenham Parish Council, and lived near the Racecourse; Councillor Barnett was a member of Greenham Parish Council and Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee; Councillor Beck was a member of Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee and Councillor Vickers had previously been a Chair and member of the Greenham Parish Council. They had also been lobbied. 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.)

(The meeting reconvened at 8.35pm)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 18/03340/COMIND in respect of the permanent use of hostel (Use Class Sui Generis) as a hotel (Use Class C1) at Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ken Neal, Parish Council representative, Mr Raymond Beard, objector, and Ms Catherine Spenser and Ms Catherine Tyrer, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended that the Committee grant planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement of similar measures to secure that an extant permission for a 123 bedroom hotel was not developed.

4.     Mr Paul Goddard that he was not aware of any parking or traffic issues and had not objections to the application.

5.     Mr Neal in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Greenham Parish Council (GPC) had received representations from local residents and strongly objected to the proposal.

·           Residents adjacent to the site bought their properties on the understanding that it would be used as a hostel for stable staff.

·           If the temporary use as an hotel were made permanent, then residents would have to deal with noise for most of the year.

·           The proximity of the buildings might be up to statutory standards, but sound echoed and reverberated between them.

·           The recreation area was 25 meters from the Nursery. This business was owned by the Racecourse and therefore would not be objecting to the proposal.

·           He challenged the suitability of having a bar close to a Nursery and accommodation.

·           In conclusion, GPC objected to the proposal as there was a more suitable position for the hotel elsewhere on the site. The recreation area could have been positioned so that it would have had no adverse effect on neighbouring properties.

6.     Councillor Jeff Beck asked how many house-holders had approached GPC with their concerns. Mr Neal replied that it had been four or five and that they had moved in prior to the temporary change of use of the hostel.

7.     Mr Beard in addressing the Committee raised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(4)

(Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 by virtue of the fact that Councillors Abbs was the Chair of Greenham Parish Council, and lived near the Racecourse; Councillor Barnett was a member of Greenham Parish Council and Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee; Councillor Beck was a member of Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee and Councillor Vickers had previously been a Chair and member of the Greenham Parish Council. They had also been lobbied. 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(5)) concerning Planning Application 19/00225/COMIND in respect of the erection of a three storey extension to the front elevation of The Lodge to provide additional rooms at Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ken Neal, Parish Council representative, Mr Raymond Beard, objector, and Mr Julian Thick and Ms Catherine Tyrer, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended that the Committee grant planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement or similar measures to secure that the extant permission for a 123 bedroom hotel was not developed.

4.     Mr Paul Goddard noted that the 2009 planning application traffic assessment had included a 123 bed hotel. This proposal was for a 76 bed hotel. He therefore had no concern regarding the volume of traffic. A parking survey had been submitted, and on non-race days there was a surplus of parking spaces, but on race-days there might be cause for concern. However if the race-goers and stable staff were staying on-site, then this would be acceptable.

5.     Mr Neal in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Greenham Parish Council (GPC) objected strongly to the proposal. The Racecourse have been unable to address the noise problem and he suggested that this application was premature, as the company needed to show they could control the amount of noise produced by their customers.

·           The extension, although further away from the Nursery, would be directly overlooking it, rather than at an angle. The use of the recreation area, would cause further problems.

6.     Councillor Tony Vickers suggested that the time the children attended the Nursery would not coincide with when The Lodge would be in use. Mr Neal explained that the extension would enable the Racecourse to cater for conferences during the day and for race days.

7.     Mr Beard in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           He expressed the view that the application was premature, as the controls used by the Racecourse to mitigate the noise had not proven effective.

·           The consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(5)

This item was deferred to a future meeting, date to be confirmed.

This item was deferred to a future meeting, date to be confirmed.