Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 12 August 2020.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2020 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following:

Councillor Phil Barnett asked for it to be noted that he had been late to the meeting because of technical difficulties, rather than through any intention on his behalf.

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 Tony Vickers, Phil Barnett, Jeff Cant and Adrian Abbs declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and (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.

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s 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 Vickers made a clarifying statement to the effect that he lived within approximately 200m of the site and in a Zone 3 property, however he did not believe this was a conflict of personal interest. He noted that he was on record as having voted against officer recommendation at the Western Area Planning Committee on 5 February 2020, where a similar issue had been raised and that he was predisposed to opposing officer recommendation on this matter. However he was open to persuasion and had not predetermined his view on this item.)

(Councillor Jeff Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. 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 Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that his commercial offices were within 100m of the property. 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(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/00152/FUL in respect of the demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 2x semi-detached dwellings and 1x detached dwelling with associated works.

2.     Matthew Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. He drew the Committees attention to a previous application which had been refused by officers, and dismissed at appeal. The officer’s recommendation had been led by the Inspectors previous decision on a proposal for a development in a similar location and design.

3.     As proposed site fell within a Flood Zone 3, policy CS16 applied and a sequential test was required. A sequential test was a process to access whether there were any alternative sites within the whole district which were less likely to flood that could be developed in preference to this site. Once these sites had been used or were unavailable, then sites more likely to flood could be considered. This process was a way to manage risk and to direct development to areas that were least likely to flood, and applied to new developments.

4.     As the application would result in a net gain of one house, officers carried out the sequential test over the whole of the district. The agent disagreed with this approach and felt that only Newbury, Thatcham and the eastern urban areas of the district should be included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.(1)

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s 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 Jeff Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. 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 Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that his commercial offices are within 100m of the property. 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 20/01186/FUL in respect of the change of use of 1 and 3 Kennet Road from 2 dwellings to 6 self-contained flats, minor exterior alterations and associated car parking and gardens.

2.     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 acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and in the update report.

3.     The Chairman invited Paul Goddard to make observations on the proposed development. Paul Goddard stated that all amendments that had been sought had been provided, including electric vehicle charging points for all spaces. He noted that cycle storage, access and parking provision were acceptable and stated that the Highway Authority was very satisfied with the plans and recommended approval subject to conditions.

Removal of speaking rights

4.     As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

5.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from David Jones (Evans Jones Ltd), agent.

6.     The written submission was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Agent Representation

Your Officer’s Report has comprehensively set out the planning considerations and associated planning balance. This proposal is supported by Officer’s with a clear recommendation to approve this application, subject to conditions.

The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable, being within the settlement boundary of the principal urban area of Newbury.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.(2)

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Western Area. The Chairman congratulated the officer who had summarised the appeal decisions as it had made it easy for Members to understand and hoped that this method of presentation would continue. David Pearson confirmed that he would pass on the Chairman’s praise to the officer, Bob Dray.