Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 8 June 2022.

Councillor Tony Vickers proposed a number of amendments to the Minutes of the meeting on 8 June 2022:

·         Condition 10 of Item 1: Amend to state that Hectors Way was to the west of the Phase 1 building.

·         Additional conditions of Item 1 on Page 14: Amend to state that the mini-roundabout was on the Kings Road / Hectors Way junction.

Councillor Carolyne Culver proposed a number of amendments to the Minutes of the meeting on 8 June 2022.

·         Condition 13 of Item 1: Amend to specify the location of the acoustic barrier.

·         Informative 11 of Item 1: Strengthen wording to specify timescale.

·         Informative 12 of Item 1: Cross-reference condition to ensure that new condition did not supersede the previous one.

The recording of the previous meeting would be checked to clarify the decisions that were made.

The approval of the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2022 was deferred to the next meeting.

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.

Councillor Phil Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and (2), but reported that, as his interest was a 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.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that ashis interest was a 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.

The Chairman declared that all Members had been lobbied with respect to Agenda Item 4(1).

(Councillor Phil Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. As his interest was a 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.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a long term local resident. Councillor Vickers added that he was predisposed towards approval of the application but not predetermined and, as such, would listen to the debate before determining his view on the item. As his interest was a 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.)

(The Chairman declared that they had been lobbied with respect to Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00648/FULD in respect of 61 Russell Road, Newbury, RG14 5JX.

2.     Ms Cheyanne Kirby, Planning Officer, 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 in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to refuse planning permission, for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the parking policies were decided in 2015/16 by the Transport Policy District, and were presented to Members and approved, as well as to a Planning Inspector. Newbury was separated into three zones, Zone 1 containing the town centre, Zone 2 in suburban Newbury, and Zone 3 outside that area. This application was in Zone 2, and the proposal required 10-12 parking spaces, of which only 8 were proposed. The area was renowned for car parking congestion, and evidence suggested that the area was one of the worst for parking, with the demand for parking near the site at 105%. Therefore, Highway Officers deemed there to be demonstrable harm, and recommended refusal of planning permission on parking grounds.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, Linda Philo, objector, Sukey Russell-Hayward, supporter, and Stuart Bartlett, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.     Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• The Newbury Town Council Planning & Highways Committee had no objection to the application, concluding that the design was in keeping with the surrounding houses on Russell Road, but there were concerns over parking. Newbury Town Council was concerned that the report did not mention car club usage and reducing the demand for cars.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.     Members did not have any questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(1)

(Councillor Phil Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was aMember of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. As his interest was a 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.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/03024/FULTEXT in respect of the former Newbury Magistrates Court and No. 20, Mill Lane, Newbury, RG14 5QU.

2.     Mr Matthew Shepherd, Senior Planning Officer, 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 in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports and completion of the Section 106 legal agreement, or to refuse planning permission if the Section 106 legal agreement was not completed.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the application was for redevelopment of an existing site, and the access into the site was existing and would be unchanged. The application complied with the Car Parking Standards and standards for cycle spaces. The Committee report noted traffic movements alongside Mill Lane which objectors had raised, and there would be a 0.7% increase. However, Highways considered that the previous Magistrates Court on the site would have generated a much higher amount of car usage than this residential development, and raised no objection.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, Annie Speller and Mark Wiltshire, objectors, and Kerry Pfleger, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.     Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee had raised as a concern the additional pressure and strain on water drainage and sewers, as the area around the station was very difficult for drainage.
• The Newbury Society raised that the application’s design was a missed opportunity to create a well designed building in line with the character of Newbury.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.     Councillor Claire Rowles asked how the look and design of the development was unsatisfactory and how it could be improved. Mr Foot responded that the early design had taken cues from the police station, and he believed it could be more architecturally creative. In addition, he believed it could have a better optimised roof.

Objector Representation

7.     Mr Mark Wiltshire in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Mr Wiltshire noted that the majority of his presentation was going to be about preserving the concrete structure but he now understood this was being retained.
• Mr Wiltshire’s main concern was the report’s mention of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(2)