Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Cant, 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 in all but Councillor Cant’s case, 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.)

(Councillors Howard Woollaston and Hilary Cole declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the London Road Industrial Estate Project Board. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate but may abstain on the matter.)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 1818/00603/COMIND in respect the renewal and expansion of existing football pitch including artificial pitches.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Gary Norman, Parish Council representative, Mr Lee McDougal (Newbury Community Football Group) and Mr Duncan Crook (Ressance), applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     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 acceptable and that representations at appeal should be made that planning permission should be granted.

4.     The Chairman reiterated that the Committee were not making a decision to approve the application, but rather a recommendation to advise the Planning Inspector.

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

·         The time had come to speak of sport, specifically football, but others as well.

·         It was time to look forward and the future started now. Newbury Football Club men’s team was two divisions lower, and the women’s team could not accept promotion because the pitch was not of an acceptable quality. There was no longer a youth team. The time had come to do something about it.

·         At the Western Area Planning meeting on 18 December 2019, the application to develop the Waterside building had been approved, and he hoped that the Committee would regard this application in the same mould, as a much needed facility for young people.

·         It was important for Newbury Town Football club to have a suitable quality pitch in a suitable location, as soon as possible. If an equivalent site were available, it would have been found already.  In the absence of plans for an alternative site, this was the only show in town.

·         Newbury Town Council urged the Committee to approve the application.

6.     Councillor Hilary Cole expressed confusion, as she understood that an alternative site had been found. Mr Norman explained that the alternative site was not of the required quality, and therefore the football team had been relegated by two divisions.

7.     Mr Crook in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He complimented officers on their report, however he felt that there was an item missing. He considered that the site should be listed under ADPP2 as a cultural facility, whereas it was currently listed as a sports stadium.

·         The purpose of the site was to serve the entire footballing community, no matter what their age or gender.

8.     Mr McDougal in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application was about providing a sporting facility for the whole community to share.

·         In the past, the facilities had been used by the community and held in high esteem for their charity fund raising.

·         The site was currently in a very tired condition. The community had shown they wanted to revive it.

·         The Football Association (FA) graded pitches in 6 steps, with 6 being the lowest quality. Faraday Road was graded at step 5, Thatcham was step 4, and Hungerford was step 2. A football team would not be allowed to play in certain divisions if their pitch was not of sufficient quality.

·         Mr McDougal had been involved in children’s football and knew the struggle of trying to find pitches of a suitable quality. His was a volunteer run community group.

·         The re-development of the site would provide a revenue stream to the public purse, and give people the environment to learn skills and realise ambition.

9.     Councillor Jeff Cant in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         He wished to express his admiration for the commitment shown to keep football alive in Newbury. This application was an expression of the community’s frustration.

·         The Committee was not considering delivering football to Newbury, but the proposal in isolation. Planning officers regarding the proposal as a strong case in the abstract and that the application was acceptable.

10.  Councillor Adrian Abbs asked the Legal officer whether the a decision made to approve this application would stand, should the football club remove their appeal. Kim Eccles explained that if a decision to recommend approval made was made at this meeting, it would be considered at appeal as an advisory, not as an approved planning permission, and a subsequent application would need to be made.

11.  Councillor Claire Rowles asked the Highways officer to comment on the application. Paul Goddard remarked that he had originally objected, as he had concerns regarding parking during the day. However, the applicant had indicated that the ground would be used mainly during the evening and at weekends. As traffic would be mostly at off-peak times, there was therefore no objection.

12.  Councillor Cant posited that Members should take account of the sustainability of the site, which could easily be accessed by train, bus, foot or bike.

13.  Councillor Tony Vickers noted that there were no conditions mentioned in the report. Derek Carnegie explained that this was for the Planning Inspector to determine.

14.  Councillor James Cole expressed the point of view that there was nothing more to discuss and proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

15.  Councillor Phil Barnett was delighted that football would be back in Newbury.

16.  At the vote the motion was carried with seven voting in favour and two Members abstaining.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to make the following recommendation:

1.     The purpose of this item for decision is not to determine the planning application, but to determine the Council’s position at the appeal.  For the reasons detailed above, it is recommended that the appeal is supported.

2.     Irrespective of its position on the planning merits, the Council will provide a list of suggested conditions on a ‘without prejudice’ basis.  Council Officers will negotiate with the Appellant on the wording on the suggested conditions.

3.     The full recommendation is as follows:

4.     To DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to make representations at appeal that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.