Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 December 2019 and 15 January 2020.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

Item 1, page 13, paragraph 19: ‘…damage to the tower’ to be replaced with ‘damage to the tow-path’.

Item 1, page 15, Condition 7: ‘…a further waterway wall shall...’ to be amended to read ‘…a further waterway wall survey shall…’ 

Councillor Carolyne Culver queried if the enforcement action, mentioned in Item 1, page 10, paragraph 27, had been taken. Derek Carnegie explained that he had spoken to Planning Enforcement about the matter.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following at the beginning of Item 1, page 32:

(Councillor Tony Vickers, Deputy Leader, in the Chair)

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 Carolyne Culver and James Cole declared an interest in Agenda Items (4) 1, but 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.

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item(4) 2, but 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.

All Councillors declared an interest in all Agenda Item(4) 4 but 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.

The Chairman reminded Mr Smallman, the agent for Item(4) 4, that no new information should be introduced after the deadline of five clear working days before the meeting (in line with the Local Authorities (Access to Meetings and Documents) (Period of Notice) (England) Order 2002), as this would give an unfair advantage over the other speakers.

(Councillors Carolyne Culver and James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item(4) 1 by virtue of the fact that they 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/02144/FULD in respect of a Section 73: Variation of Condition 2 - 'Approved plans' of previously approved application 19/00277/FULD: Replacement dwelling.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Anthony Stansfeld, supporter, and Mr Callan Powers (Fowler Architecture and Planning Ltd), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Sian Cutts 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 unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

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

·                     Neither the Parish Council nor the District Councillor had objected to this proposal.

·                     Three mansions had been built in Kintbury and West Woodhay in recent years, which made this proposal look like a small cottage.

·                     It would be an unobtrusive house and would not be seen from the road.

·                     Templeton Road was a private road.

·                     Planning decisions needed to be consistent. He understood this was a large extension, but he could not see the harm in approving the application in this case.

·                     He would have objected, as he had done in the past, if he felt the proposal was harmful.

·                     As there were larger designs which had been approved in the area, he did not feel that this would be setting a precedent.

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

·                     The applicants apologised for not being able to attend the meeting.

·                     This proposal was in addition to the extant permission, to the rear of the property.

·                     This would be the family home for the foreseeable future and was not disproportionate, in his view. Overall the visual effect of the extension would be neutral.

·                     The design was of a fall-back position and would be shielded from the road. The plot was ample and the visual impact would be insignificant.

·                     The applicant had offered a range of measures that would mitigate the carbon impact, which the Committee and officers had no means to compel.

·                     West Berkshire Council had declared a Climate Emergency and the extra measures offered by the applicant should be given extra weight by Members in their decision, as they exceeded expected standards.

·                     Approval should be given as this would be an improved, environmentally sustainable site.

·                     The removal of trees for the third parking space was included in the extant permission. There had been no objection made by the Highways or Tree officers.

·                     He asked that the Committee follow the lead of the Parish Council and approve this application.

6.     Councillor Claire Rowles asked whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(1)

(Councillors Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Newbury Town Council and served on 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 Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item(4) 2 by virtue of the fact that he was Ward Member. 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 Application 19/02820/FULD in respect of a new dwelling on land at 67 Andover Road, Newbury.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Parish Council representative, Mr Anthony Pick and Ms Jackie Milsom, objector, and Mr John Kane and Ms Annika Hatchwell (Inspiration Chartered Architects), applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Sian Cutts 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 unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to expound on his part of the report. Paul Goddard confirmed that he had no objections to the proposal.

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

·                     The Town Council had listened to the arguments and considered the messages, and had voted to raise no objection.

·                     They felt the distance between the terrace and the proposed development was sufficient, as it was less than the distance to the existing house to the left of the terrace.

·                     The aspect from Andover Road was minimal, as only the gable end of the house would be seen. Compared to the house to the left of the terrace, this proposal was less obtrusive as it was set back and was hidden by shrubbery.

·                     From the Erleigh Dene aspect, they did not feel there would be any impact on the street scene.

·                     There had been adequate space left at the rear to safeguard the trees, and landscaping plans would provide for shrubbery to soften the view.

·                     When the application had come before the Town Council they had felt that it might enhance the view from the Andover Road as the development would be set back, and the shrubbery currently masking the terrace would be reduced.

·                     This was a passive house, which they supported in the light of the announced Climate Emergency.

6.     Councillor Carolyne Culver asked for the Town Council’s view on the materials being used and whether they were in keeping with the surroundings. Mr Foot remarked that this had been discussed. The Town Council were keen on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(2)

The application was withdrawn and was not discussed at the Committee meeting.

(All Councillors declared a personal interest in Agenda Item(4) 4 by virtue of the fact that they 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/01281/OUTMAJ in respect an outline application for demolition of existing Newspaper House and commercial buildings and redevelopment of the site for 71 flats and office accommodation together with parking and associated works. Matters to be considered: access, appearance, layout and scale.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Parish Council representative, and Mr James Gurney (Newspaper House Holdings Ltd) and Mr Steven Smallman (Pro-Vision) applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Lydia Mather 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 unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to expound on his part of the report. Paul Goddard noted that there had been concerns regarding an increase in congestion, with an estimated 45-47 additional movements. However, with the changes to Fleming Road and the access to Faraday Road, it was felt that traffic would be sufficiently dispersed. He was content with the layout of the site, and believed the shortfall in the number of parking spaces (39) could be mitigated through a Parking Management Plan, where commercial and residential properties would share the spaces.

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

·                     The Town Council had listened to the arguments and commented that they were concerned about the proximity of the development to the A339, and the air and noise pollution this would cause for the residents of the flats.

·                     He was also concerned about the flood risk and would be interested to see the Committee’s deliberations, as there were clearly some more explanations required.

6.     Mr Smallman objected to the Chairman raising with him, at the beginning of the meeting, the submission deadline for information to the Committee. He was unaware of the rule that information had to be submitted at least five clear working days before the meeting, and took offence that he was being accused of repeated unfair behaviour. This rule was not the norm for councils and had not been made plain to him.

7.     The Chairman offered his apologies if he had been mistaken and asked the Legal Officer to clarify matters.

8.     Sharon Armour explained that the rule was contained within government legislation and applied to all local authorities, not just the council, and was printed on the front page of the agenda, third paragraph. Mrs Armour read out the relevant paragraph.

9.     The Chairman reiterated that any information should be sent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.(4)