Agenda and minutes

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.

The Chairman invited Councillor Adrian Abbs to speak. Councillor Abbs apologised for his part in the incident which occurred at the Western Area Planning Meeting held on 3 July 2019. He confirmed that it was not his intention to disrespect any member of the Committee, and he trusted that the Committee would accept his apology and be able to move forward on addressing planning matters.

Councillor Hilary Cole declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and (3), but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Jeff Cant and Andy Moore declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(2) and (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.

Councillor Clive Hooker declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), 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 Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was Ward Member for Chieveley and Cold Ash and a Chieveley Parish Councillor. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she 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 19/00317/FUL in respect of the creation of a pond and embankment.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mike Belcher, Chieveley Parish Council representative, Mr Henry Peto, Mr Barry Ayres and Mr Cyril Wood, objectors, and Ms Jill Scrivener (Bourne Rural Planning Consultancy Ltd) and Mr Harvey Rodda (Flood/Drainage Consultant), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Sian Cutts introduced the report to Members, which had been called in by the Ward Members due to there being more than ten objections. The report took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations, and in conclusion it detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to clarify his part of the report. Paul Goddard noted that on page 14 of the report, concerns about debris on the highway, due to exporting and importing material to the site, had been resolved as the majority of the work for creating the bund had been done.

5.     The Chairman also asked the Drainage and Flood Risk Management Officer to comment on the scheme. Stuart Clark explained that he had not been involved in the initial review and was content with the hydrological information that had been submitted. He noted that the amount of surface water flowing onto the highway was not serious and there had been no road closures due to flooding in that area. The main issue was that he was not convinced that the bund was fit for purpose and he needed to see a Slope Stability Analysis Report or plan for stabilising the slope submitted before the application was approved. He also had concerns regarding the maintenance of the bund. There would be a large body of water held by the bund, and water flowing off the hill would go into the outlet pipe and into crates. If the pipe became blocked, it would need to be cleared and this could only be accessed from the crest of the embankment, which had a 1:1 slope with a six foot drop to one side, thereby making a dangerous working environment. He was also concerned that should children play on the bund, they would be in danger of falling off it and into the road. He asked therefore, if there was a maintenance plan and what consideration had been given to the safety of children playing near the pond.

6.     Stuart Clark further informed the Committee that he had designed schemes similar to this in Thatcham and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

(Councillors Jeff Cant and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2), by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council. 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 Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/01672/FUL in respect of the refurbishment, partial demolition and extension of existing Community Youth Centre to modernise and enhance the facilities together with hard landscaping, boundary treatment and external lighting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Gary Norman, Newbury Town Council representative, Paul Woods (Edge 4 Planning on behalf of Morley Stores Ltd (Camp Hopson)) and Emma Cooper (Camp Hopson – Furniture Store Manager), objector, and Robert James (Carter Jonas), David Seward (Berkshire Youth) and Nick Kirby (Pegasus Group), applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

1.     Janine Wright introduced the report 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 justifiable. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report where additional Conditions had been presented and Natural England’s concerns met.

2.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to comment. Paul Goddard noted that the location was in the Town Centre with several public car parks nearby and was therefore very sustainable. He had no objection to the application.

3.     Mr Gary Norman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         New Town Council (NTC) wholeheartedly supported this application.

·         It was a much needed facility that specialised in services for young people, which were scarce due to West Berkshire Council budget cuts.

·         Young people were often maligned for doing things they should not, and this was a golden opportunity to provide them with a facility and to improve the general appearance of a building that was a very tired eyesore in a conservation area.

·         The development fitted in with improving this area and with the canal corridor design statement. The design statement did not want to preserve the area in aspic, but use it, while encouraging a proper relationship between the buildings and the canal. The overall structure would remain intact, but the appearance and the environmental impact would be improved, with very few neighbours affected.

·         NTC had been looking for more sites for solar panels and this building could be a candidate for that.

4.     Mr Paul Woods in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Morely Stores Ltd had no objection in principle and would welcome the building coming back in to use. They were very supportive of phase one and two. However, phase three, and the climbing tower would have an adverse impact on the store and the conservation area, due to its size scale and the proximity to the store.

·         The proposal would impact on the windows and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item (4)3 by virtue of the fact that she lived in the area. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Clive Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda Item (4)3 by virtue of the fact that he was Ward Member for Downlands. 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 Hooker opened the item by explaining that he was both the Ward Member for the application and Chairman of the Committee. He therefore decided that in the circumstances, he would stand down from the Chair for the hearing of this application and Councillor Tony Vickers, as Vice-Chair, would conduct the meeting for Agenda Item (4)3. This was agreed by the Members of the Committee.)

(Councillor Vickers in the Chair)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/01690/FULD in respect of the erection of one dwelling within the curtilage of a public house.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Johnston, Beedon Parish Council representative, Mr Giles Rainy Brown, objector, and Ms Clara Millar (Turley) and Ms Sara Dutfield (Turley), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

1.     Sian Cutts introduced the report 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 justifiable.

2.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to comment. Paul Goddard drew the Committees attention to page 38 of the report. The site was an existing public house and the visibility for vehicles accessing the car park would be unchanged. The footway would be widened to 1.5m, but the access remained at 4.8m wide, allowing two cars to pass. The current number of 19 parking spaces would be reduce to 17. The development would be provided with three spaces and was therefore compliant. He had no objection to the scheme.

3.     Mr Johnston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         There were concerns about the safety of the patrons entering and leaving the pub.

·         The access was too narrow for vehicles to pass each other and pedestrians safely.

·         A previous, rejected application for two, three-bedroomed houses had been refused, it was therefore difficult to understand how this proposal was recommended for approval as there was not much difference between the footprints of the plans.

·         The nearness of the boundary wall, would mean that the light levels of the adjoining property would be much reduced.

·         If the Committee were minded to approve the application, he asked that the area be ring-fenced during construction.

4.     Mr Rainy Brown in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·          The elevations in the plans were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)

(Councillors Jeff Cant and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(4), by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council. 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 Clive Hooker returned to the Chair.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/02676/HOUSE in respect of Section 73: Variation of Condition 2 - Approved plans and Condition 3 - Materials of previously approved application 18/00541/HOUSE: Demolish single-storey garage and rear conservatory. Proposed two-storey side and rear extensions and loft conversion, to create large family home. Widen existing dropped kerb access to provide four off-road parking spaces.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Green and Mr Taig McNab, objector, and Mr James Sopp (Hungerford Design), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

1.     Councillor Adrian Abbs proposed a Motion under Rule 7.6.2 of the Constitution to extend the meeting and conclude business by 10.30pm. Councillor Hilary Cole seconded the motion and the Committee voted in favour.

2.     Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was less intrusive than the extant permission and a conditional approval was justifiable.

3.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to comment. Paul Goddard confirmed that he was content with the proposal.

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

·           This was the second time he had opposed the scheme and on neither occasion had the applicant consulted him.

·           The concerns raised against the rejected scheme, such as subservience, gap retention and an imbalance in the overall design had not been addressed by the new proposal.

·           The design had doubled the size of the existing house. The planning officers did not consider this to be significant, but Mr Green and other residents did. It was not right, and it was not fair or reasonable.

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

·           The loss of light to his kitchen window meant that the room would only be able to access 28% of natural light. This was half the legal allowance and was an unreasonable level of overshadowing.

·           He had been forced to take legal action against the extant design, hence the new application. The new plan was meant to reduce the size of the proposal, but the depth was now even greater. The recommendation of the planning officer was that by increasing the depth, the impact would be reduced. However, he was unable to reconcile how building a brick wall in front of his kitchen window could reduce the impact.

6.     Councillor Andy Moore asked if the result of the legal case in play would change officer’s view of the application. Mr McNab explained that he had sought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(4)