Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 31 August 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 31 August 2022 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 Dennis Benneyworth, Carolyne Culver and Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 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 Dennis Benneyworth and Carolyne Culver 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 Members of the Committee declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), 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.

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications).

Prior to consideration of the individual planning applications, it was noted that presentations of the applications would be given with the aid of site photographs. This was due to the suspension of Council activity during the week following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, which meant that site visits could not be undertaken. The decision had been taken to proceed on this basis in order to not incur additional delay in determining the applications. It was noted that this approach had been adopted throughout the Covid pandemic.

A concern was expressed that photographs were not an adequate replacement for site visits, which often highlighted additional information. Clarification was sought that the Council would not be open to legal challenge in the event that applications subsequently went to appeal. It was confirmed that careful consideration had been taken as to whether the available photographs would be sufficient to show the sites. However, if Members felt that they had insufficient information to be able to make a decision then they should seek to defer the item.

It was agreed that the meeting should proceed as planned. However, Councillor Adrian Abbs asked for it to be recorded that he would have preferred a vote as to whether Members were comfortable to proceed using photographs before consideration of the applications.

Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that was the local 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.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth, Carolyne Culver and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/03083/COMIND in respect of a change of use to Class B8 at Land Adjacent to the M4, Membury Airfield, Hungerford.

2.     Mr Jake Brown (Principal 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 – Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Gareth Dowding (Principal Engineer – Traffic and Road Safety) if he had any observations. No highways issues were raised.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Bridget Jones, Parish Council representative, Mr Alan Peace and Mr Richard Bobrucki, objectors, and Mr Andrew Turvill, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     Mrs Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Lambourn Parish Council had serious concerns about the impact of this proposal on the road network, emergency access to the M4, residential amenity and the environment within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·         The case officer had acknowledged that the site was agricultural land outside the Protected Employment Area (PEA).

·         The previous application had lapsed and so this was a greenfield site, which should have been restored – the applicant had stripped the topsoil, imported additional material and created a large bund prior to submitting the current application. This was not conserving / enhancing the site within the AONB.

·         The claim that biodiversity would be enhanced was considered insulting, since the applicant had already destroyed it. Environmental screening had been done for another application and only covered a third of the site. The screening exercise which had determined that this was not an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development was done after the applicant had destroyed the green field.

·         Since 2018, when the previous permission had been granted, the number of HGVs using access roads to this site had more than doubled and the Walkers Logistics Plan would add hundreds more.

·         Highways had highlighted the lack of public transport and the dangers of walking and cycling on Ramsbury Road, which made the site unsustainable.

·         Cumulative impacts of further development affected local villages, especially between the site and Junction 14 of the M4, yet planners did not consider the effects sufficient to give rise to concerns. However, residents did have concerns and complaints about noise, obstruction and out of hours working had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.(1)

Councillor Dennis Benneyworth declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was the local 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.

Councillors Carolyne Culver and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/01843/HOUSE for Lake House, West Woodhay Road, West Woodhay in respect of Section 73 variation/removal of condition 3 (approved plans) of approved 18/01441/HOUSE - Demolition of garden store, to amend the previously approved Eastern and Western pavilions and basement.

2.     Mr Jake Brown (Principal 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 to delegate to the Service Director – Development and Regulation to make representations at appeal that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed in the main and update reports, together with the authority to negotiate or amend those conditions during the course of the appeal.

3.     Mr Gareth Dowding (Principal Engineer – Traffic and Road Safety) had no observations relating to the application.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Simon Hayes West Woodhay Parish Meeting, and Mr Steven Sensecall, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

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

·         West Woodhay Parish Meeting and Inkpen, Kintbury, Hamstead Marshall and East Woodhay Parish Councils all opposed the original application.

·         The underground aspect of the application incorporated a wellness centre, a third swimming pool with five toilets, and a large car park as part of 1,500 sq.m development.

·         In 2019, permission was granted for a smaller underground car park, but the new application was for a development three times bigger than that previously approved and five times the footprint of the residence.

·         No thought had been given to the amount of spoil and traffic associated with taking this off site.

·         Prior to approval of the previous application, the agent, Area of North Wessex Downs AONB Team and the Planning Team had agreed to reduce the size of the basement and replace the ramp to the basement parking with a car lift to reduce the footprint and built form, which in turn would reduce the impact on the AONB. Given this previous negotiation, it was queried as to why the current application was being recommended for approval when it was three times the size. Also, there had been no consultation with the AONB Team on the current application.

·         Lake House was built on a bog and the effects of excavating to 7.5m were unclear. The applicant’s drainage reports related solely to the site and did not consider upstream properties. They made no mention of adjacent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.(2)

All Members of the Committee declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that this was a joint venture application submitted on behalf of the Council and Sovereign Housing. 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 Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the Executive Portfolio Holder for Housing. 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.

Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee where this item had been previously discussed. 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(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Greenham Parish 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.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 22/02145 in respect of constriction of 18 new homes with associated parking, access, amenity and landscaping at Land adjacent to Phoenix Centre, Newtown Road, Newbury.

2.     Mr Simon Till (Team Leader - Development Control) 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 - Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports, and completion of a section 106 agreement within four months (or such longer period that may be authorised).

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Gareth Dowding (Principal Engineer (Traffic and Road Safety)) if he had any observations relating to the application. He confirmed that there were sufficient car parking spaces proposed and all would be of the correct size. At least two disabled parking spaces would be provided.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Nigel Foot, Town Council representative, and Nick Fisher, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

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

·         Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee had  supported the application.

·         It was refreshing to see an application of this size that was entirely for affordable housing.

·         The Town Council was encouraged by the sustainability aspects, including the provision of an air-source heat-pump and was happy to support the application.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.(3)