Agenda item

(Councillors Jeff Cant, Tony Vickers and Phil Barnett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(3) 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(3) 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 and may abstain on the matter.)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/00604/OUT in respect of an outline permission for replacement of clubhouse and stand at Newbury Football Ground. Matters to be considered: Access and Layout.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, 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.     Mr Crook in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application had not been made out of frustration, but out of a genuine hope that the Planning Inspector would approve it.

·         He felt they had shown the economic viability of redeveloping the site and that this was the best use of the land.

·         It was difficult to understand where another site could be found that would be so widely used and be able to positively generate income.

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

·         He was trying to create teams for the under 18’s and under 23’s, but was in a chicken and egg situation. He could not attract youngster to the team as there was no ground, and he could not warrant a ground without having teams who wanted to play.

·         The current ground had no clubhouse and parents simply dropped off their children and left. A clubhouse would provide an area for parents and players to mingle and create a community atmosphere. He asked Members to not underestimate the value of a meeting place.

6.     Councillor Claire Rowles asked if the intention was to use the facility for the wider community or just for the football club. Mr Crook explained that the application was not only on behalf of a single club, but for the entire footballing community. It would play a wider social role, in charitable events, for example. Having a decent facility would be positive for the health and wellbeing of players. It would incentivise young players to stay with the club.

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers expressed the opinion that he could not see an alternative site, although one had been explored in Wash Common. Mr Crook explained that the Wash Common site had been considered, but was out of the town centre. A town centre location was preferable, as it would bring parents into the town. Also Sport England recommended that grounds had sustainable transport facilities.

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked officers to clarify that the plans were accurate, as they showed the existing footpath as being slightly re-routed. Derek Carnegie explained that there would be some implications but nothing significant. Councillor Abbs further commented that he frequently used the path and it was often rather wet. Derek Carnegie confirmed that there had been no objection from consultees as to the routing of the path.

9.     Councillor Rowles queried whether the trees on the plan were new or existing. Derek Carnegie explained that a detailed landscaping scheme would be required, should permission be granted.

10.  Councillor Cant proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver.

11.  Councillor James Cole asked for clarification on the position of the fence and the protection of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Derek Carnegie answered that there would be implications for the path and the fence line was on the limit of the development. He noted Members concern regarding the SSSI, however no consultees had raised no concerns about the proximity.

12.  At the vote the motion was carried, with seven voting in favour and two abstentions.

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.