Agenda item

Proposal:	Creation of open space for public recreation including demolition of former football ground clubhouse; delivery of new parking spaces and erection of timber bollards and new fencing generally.
Location:	Newbury Football Club, Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2AD.
Applicant:	West Berkshire Council
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the schedule of conditions (Section 8.2 of the report)   AND   Subject to a referral to the National Planning Casework Unit as the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant planning permission for an application on land owned by the Council, despite receiving an objection from Sport England.

 

(Councillors Hilary Cole, Lynne Doherty and Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Executive. 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 Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee where this item had been considered. 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 Jeff Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Ward Member for this application. 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 Adrian Abbs and Carolyne Culver declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/02402/REG3 in respect of Newbury Football Club, Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2AD. Approval was sought for the creation of open space for public recreation including demolition of former football ground clubhouse; delivery of new parking spaces and erection of timber bollards and new fencing generally.

2.     Mr Masie Masiiwa (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 Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined 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 indicated that the application followed previous applications which had been looked at extensively with regard to highways, particularly parking accumulation. With the planning applications that had been submitted in 2018, extensive surveys had been undertaken with regard to the use of the car park and the results concluded that with mainly off-peak use, there would be sufficient car parking available. On that basis, there was no objection on traffic grounds because any traffic generation was mainly off-peak. There was an existing car park on the site which was being re-vitalised and there was no objection from Highways to this proposal.

4.     Councillor Phil Barnett noted that no Town Council representative was due to speak to the item, but this was because the Officer who should have given notification by 4.00pm on the day before the meeting, was on annual leave. Councillor Barnett felt this put Members in a difficult position and said that even at the site meeting, discussion had taken place about who would be speaking. He therefore made a request for the sake of transparency to suspend Standing Orders to allow the Newbury Town Council representative to speak at this meeting. The Chairman indicated that this would be possible if the majority of the Committee also wished to suspend Standing Orders. Councillor Hilary Cole stressed that if it was agreed to suspend Standing Orders, it should be made clear that this was an exceptional circumstance to avoid similar requests in future. She agreed that it was a sensitive application. The Chairman agreed there had to be an exceptional reason.  He acknowledged the situation with Covid-19, problems and the fact that Parish / Town Councils had experienced issues with their internal communications and the situation where there had been no Chairman or Vice-Chairman supervising the site visits.  As such, there were mitigating circumstances as well as being a matter of extreme public interest. At the vote, the motion to suspend Standing Orders proposed by Councillor Barnett and seconded by Councillor Abbs was carried.

5.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the following addressed the Committee on this application: Vaughan Miller (Newbury Town Council); Lee McDougall and Les Durrant (objectors); and Bill Bagnell (applicant).

Parish/Town Council Representation

6.     Mr Miller in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application was to significantly change the use of the community leisure facility, as such, it should demonstrate benefits to the community, meet a community need, and be compliant with policy.

·         The application did not demonstrate any clear benefits. 

·         Community benefit: there would be a loss of a first-class football pitch and so the bar was set extremely high in terms of being able to demonstrate any benefit. The proposal was to replace the football pitch with a recreational area which would have no markings or goal posts, which would not be a MUGA and would be of no benefit to the community. 

·         Financial benefit: demolishing the club house and changing facilities would save the Applicant approximately £17,000 over the next 3 years,  but would cost the Applicant £191,000 to do so. There may be some income from parking charges, but it was not proven that this would be sufficient to prevent significant loss over the cost of the project. 

·         Since this was public money and there would be no demonstrable economic or public benefit, this could not be justified and made it more likely, if the application were to be approved, that the decision would be ripe for appeal. 

·         The Applicant had not demonstrated the need for another recreational area in that part of the town, which was well catered for by Victoria Park and Fireman’s Field.

·         The Applicant had not demonstrated any need for extra parking; the existing parking on the site was not fully used and the need for a further 80 parking spaces had not been demonstrated. A new multi-storey car park was being built at the station with hundreds of spaces. 

·         The Playing Pitch Strategy stated there was a very low level of football provision across the area that was secured for long-term community use, i.e. only 24%. This demonstrated a clear need for more pitches for organised football, not general recreational usage. This application did not go any way to meeting that need.

·         This application was opposed to the Council’s own policies; according to policy ADPP2, the existing community facility would be protected and where appropriate enhanced. This proposal neither protected nor enhanced the existing facility. 

·         The Playing Pitch Strategy also stated that Sport England policy exception 4 applied; namely that a replacement facility should be operational prior to the commencement of development.  At the site visit, the Planning Officer had confirmed the application did constitute development and it was clear that no development was allowed on the site until a replacement facility was operational.

·         In relation to the planning balance in conclusion section 7.3 of the report, the proposal would in no way provide continued provision of a community leisure facility. The current leisure facility was a football ground and it was therefore wrong to suggest that these plans would provide continued provision of a community leisure facility and this argument, and the significant weight given to it, should be dismissed. 

·         Officers considered that the benefits of bringing the site back into community use clearly outweighed the continued non-use of the site.  Whilst it was not disputed that the continued non-use of the site was a bad thing, this application was the wrong proposal to address the issue.  The site would not be brought back into community use because converting the football pitch to a general recreational area where organised football could no longer be played in a location that was not one the general public would go to did not fit this description.  Therefore, this argument should also be dismissed and not considered in favour of the proposal.

·         In conclusion:

1.    The proposal demonstrated neither financial or community benefits

2.    It did not demonstrate that it met any community need

3.    It went against the council’s own policies

4.    It was very likely to open the council to the prospect of it being taken to appeal and therefore could subject the Council to risk of further unacceptable costs. 

·         Since there was a clear conflict of interest in the Council as landowner and as planning authority, the public had a right to assume that no Committee Member voting would play any part in whatever body or Committee was set up to administer the site as a landlord.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

7.     Councillor Carolyne Culver asked where the location of Fireman’s Field was.  Mr Miller indicated that it was opposite the Fire Station.

8.     Councillor Abbs sought clarification on the difference between a community leisure facility and a recreational facility. Mr Miller indicated that he did not know exactly. He confirmed that Newbury Town Council’s position was that the development was inappropriate.

9.     Councillor Hilary Cole noted from the report that Newbury Town Council’s objection was in agreement with Sport England, however, since the latter had withdrawn their objection, was there a change in the Town Council’s position.  Mr Miller confirmed the Town Council’s objection was in line with Sport England’s objection, but also with Newbury Town Council’s strategy.   

10.  The Chairman asked Mr Miller to expand on the reasons as to why there was a risk of Appeal associated with this application. Mr Miller said there were controversial element involving the permanent loss of a football pitch and on the grounds of there being no financial or community benefit and there were planning grounds for calling this application in.

11.  Councillor Culver noted that the football pitch was an asset of community value (ACV), and asked if it was just the grounds that were considered of community value or whether the associated facilities also part of that asset.  In addition, Councillor Culver referred to point 6.12 of the report which referenced the ‘internal stripping out of services by vandals or salvage hunters’ and asked who should have been looking after the site as it was considered an asset of community value. Mr Miller responded by saying both the grounds and associated facilities were covered by the ACV designation.  The current asset was nominated by the Newbury Community Football Group.  An application had been submitted by Newbury Town Council to renew the ACV designation.  He indicated that the ACV designation gave hope of future retention of the facilities.  With regard to who should have been looking after the site, he considered that the landlord was responsible.

Objector Representation

12.  Mr McDougall in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposal was not about the creation of an open space sports facility, but was in fact the removal of an existing grass football pitch. 

·         There would be no MUGA or sports pitch, no pitch markings, no goal, no toilet facility, no fencing and no booking facility. The proposal would involve removal of a grass football pitch that had been in use since 1963. 

·         The shortage of playing pitches across West Berkshire, which the Playing Pitch Strategy outlined, would exist for over three years, so it did not make sense to remove an existing grass football pitch from use in the centre of town.  In effect, this put a ban on organised football being played on an existing facility.

13.  Mr Durrant in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He confirmed that he was the author of the letter to the Secretary of State. He said the Applicant had openly stated that their intention was to use the pitch facility on a temporary basis. 

·         There was a long-term development scheme in prospect which would lead to the unjustifiable loss of the ground without the provision of an equal or better facility being put in place before it was taken away. 

·         Whilst Sport England had withdrawn their objection, the proposal conflicted with Council policy and NPPF, and based on the available information, the replacement facility would not be available, as stated in the report, by Spring of 2022. 

·         There was no design in the information available, it had not been subject to a planning application or community consultation and was unlikely to happen any time soon. At best, it was considered unsuitable to demolish the existing facility and effectively take it away. 

·         A particular concern was in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Officer’s report was considered to be completely wrong and misguided. The proposal was part of a very large development project, namely the redevelopment of London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE). It was part of an accumulative impact and this proposal should have been the subject of EIA, including flood risk assessment. The Officer’s report was considered to be totally defective in regard to these areas. The letter to the Secretary of State dealt with all of these issues fully and was available to Members. 

·         The proposal was considered to be contrary to policy. The development brief and master plan for redevelopment of LRIE did not feature in the adopted development plan nor in the emerging plan. The Applicant’s Consultants had stated, when the brief was put before the Executive, that the proposal was not policy-compliant. 

·         In taking the application forward, with all the defects contained in the Officer’s report and the consultation programme, the objectors believed that the proposal should be referred to the Secretary of State and an offer had been made for the NCFG proposed application, which was still undetermined, to also be called in so they could both be considered on an objective basis, preferably at a public enquiry. 

·         It was an ACV and was too good to lose.

·         The letter that had been sent to the Secretary of State did not rely on Sport England’s objection, but gave many reasons, in particular: the EIA; non-compliance with National Planning Policy; non-compliance with Council policy; and the fact that the Applicant in this case happened to be the Council whose objective ultimately was a major development proposal. For these reasons, he felt the matter should be looked at objectively by the Secretary of State.

·         There were a number of very detailed issues that caused concern related to the use of the facility by the community group at the present time and what they were trying to achieve. This was much more in line with the Council’s adopted and emerging planning policy than the proposal. It was felt that the deficiencies for screening this application properly as to whether or not it constituted EIA development was sufficient grounds for the Secretary of State to intervene. Mr Durrant respectfully asked the Committee, in the interests of transparency and fairness to the community who had been promoting the retention of this facility, to not make a final decision at this meeting. 

Member Questions to the Objector

14.  Councillor Abbs asked which policies the proposal contravened. Mr Durrant replied that the existing core strategy was being ignored, in particular the proposal was in conflict with policies CS8 and CS9. There were a number of other more detailed policies on a local area basis which related to the retention and enhancement of such facilities, for example, the Area Delivery Plan Policy for Newbury. Mr Durrant also considered that there were aspects of National Planning Policy which he believed were also not being adhered to.

15.  Councillor Culver asked Mr McDougall what he thought the likelihood was if the application went through that the pitch would be used for 11-a-side football.  Mr McDougall said he thought there was no likelihood as it was impossible to book and there would be no markings and goals on the ground and he thought the facility would predominantly be used for dog-walking.

Applicant/Agent Representation

16.  Mr Bill Bagnell (Manager - Special Projects) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application proposed the demolition of the old football clubhouse, turnstiles, porta-cabin lavatory block and the temporary reopening of the old grass pitch with new boundary treatments and appropriate signage for public use and the provision of new pay-and-display parking spaces. 

·         The clubhouse had been beyond economic repair since 2018 when the last tenant left, making it both a cost and health and safety liability, despite reasonable security measures. The building could not be used in any capacity again and there was no satisfactory reason to retain it at a cost to the Council. 

·         The application proposed the reopening of the old grass pitch for general public enjoyment, for recreational sport which, until the area was made fit for use, should remain closed. 

·         The proposed pay-and-display parking would be sited on existing areas of hard-standing and would provide helpful income to both support the temporary facility and income to the Council generally.

·         It was very important to see the application in the wider context of the Council’s well-known aspiration to develop the London Road Industrial Estate. This application was the first in a series of applications, the process of which had been subject to considerable consultation with Sport England, who had confirmed they had no objection to the proposals contained in the application. 

·         Mr Bagnell thanked the Committee for their time and said he hoped the application would be looked upon favourably. 

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

17.  Councillor Culver asked Mr Bagnell if he agreed that the facility had not been looked after.  Mr Bagnell confirmed that the Council was the Landlord and was reasonably responsible for looking after assets to an appropriate level according to the condition of the asset. The clubhouse had been condition surveyed in July 2018, where immediate reoccupation required £200,000 worth of work, with an additional £100,000 required the following year and a total by year 5 of £500,000 for a building which would cost to replace new at the time in 2018 of between £900,000 and £1 million.  As such, it was felt the building was not worth protecting from an asset value point of view, but it had been necessary to keep the building secure and closed to try and prevent people from breaking in and, in the process being seriously injured, possibly exposing the Council to a serious liability issue. The Council had installed 24-hour metal sheet security to keep the building closed, including metal sheet security of the roof in places where it had been broken into via the rooflights. Mr Bagnell agreed the Landlord was responsible but did not agree that it had let a valuable asset deteriorate unnecessarily, but it had been secured to prevent unauthorised access. 

18.  Councillor Abbs asked Mr Bagnell whether Sport England’s withdrawal of their objection indicated their support of the demolition of the clubhouse. Mr Bagnell said Sport England were no longer objecting as they saw the application in the wider context of what was being proposed to be delivered at Monks Lane as a replacement football facility. Sport England had confidence in what was being proposed to be done elsewhere to re-provide for football and as a result they did not object to this proposal. Mr Bagnell had not seen evidence of Sport England in support of the application but had seen formal confirmation that they had no objections.

19.  Councillor Abbs asked whether that meant Sport England's standard objections would not apply, i.e. that the sports ground must be available as a replacement sports ground. It appeared that just because they had not objected, they were certainly not in support, and he asked if that meant their standard rules did not apply. Mr Bagnell said Sport England’s current position was predicated on the basis that the Council was committed to re-providing a better facility at Monks Lane with long-term sustainability and security of tenure.

20.  Councillor Abbs asked whether minutes of meetings and a timeline of discussions between the Council and Sport England could be shared with the Committee along with promises made in relation to the delivery of a new facility. Mr Bagnell was unable to confirm the exact timeline of discussions, but believed the Case Officer could confirm that recent correspondence between the parties was now publicly available. The Chairman concurred that the information was available in the update report that had been circulated approximately three hours prior to the meeting. Councillor Abbs considered this was an unacceptable timeframe for Members to be updated.

21.  Councillor Barnett expressed concerns about the unevenness of and obstructions projecting from the hardstanding. He asked whether it would be asphalted or made good. Mr Bagnell said the plan was to replace considerable areas of tarmac fail with new, and areas with protruding metals would be broken out, removed and re-laid to new tarmac. 

22.  Councillor Lynne Doherty asked whether there was a public benefit for removal of the clubhouse on health and safety grounds. Mr Bagnell replied that if a rough sleeper broke into the building out of necessity of having to seek shelter and the building was then set on fire by vandals (previous incidents of arson had taken place in relation to an adjoining porta-cabin), the risk of such a scenario occurring meant that he wanted the building demolished as soon as possible. 

23.  Councillor Doherty asked whether there was a public benefit to the remaining grass pitch in terms of physical health. Mr Bagnell said whilst the area would no longer be the best facility in terms of organised football matches, which ordinarily would have an exclusive closed ground, the proposed new facility would be available to everyone. Health and wellbeing could be manifested in both taking part in recreational and sport activities or, as previously mentioned, dog-walking. As such, Mr Bagnell believed there to be a health benefit in the wider sense, the alternative being the current extremely run-down area left closed until the land was potentially needed for redevelopment.

24.  The Chairman asked Mr Bagnell to advise on how the Applicant had sought planning advice, apart from that given by Addison Young. Mr Bagnell stated he had a certain amount of experience himself, but he also reasonably had to be guided by Planning and where policy had been fully adhered to. Mr Bagnell reiterated this was the first relevant application in a series of applications, working towards an application on the LRIE, so he had not taken advice not only in the context of this application, but in the wider context of the LRIE.

25.  Councillor Abbs asked Mr Bagnell whether he had qualifications in health and mental health or whether he was offering a layman’s opinion on the benefits of the proposal. Mr Bagnell said he believed he had been asked the question as a layman and he had answered as such.

26.  With reference to this application being one of a series of applications, Councillor Abbs asked how this could be aligned with the EIA comment made by Mr Durrant. Mr Bagnell said the first hurdle to get over in looking at how to regenerate the LRIE was to review commercial viability. The Addison Young report gave a positive position with viability continuing to be in place. The EIA was a long and detailed iterative process which would eventually result in an environmental statement being attached as an important document to an outline application on the LRIE as a whole. Mr Bagnell explained that the Council was at the very beginning of that environmental investigative process, some of which would be very straightforward, i.e. desktop surveys, whilst some would be more challenging, i.e. flooding, drainage and contamination. He confirmed that the Council was at the beginning of the process and would be checking the Environment Agency’s levels on site.

27.  Councillor Abbs asked when Addison Young’s report around commercial viability had become available. Mr Bagnell stated that this was towards the end of November 2019. Councillor Abbs noted that this was pre-Covid and so there was a risk that it was now out of date. 

28.  It was agreed at this point not to debate any future planning or development at LRIE, as Mr Bagnell was representing the Council as the land owner and not as the Planning Authority, and the Committee may prejudice itself were it to continue. It was recognised that there was a ‘Chinese Wall’ between the Council as developer and planning authority.

29.  Mrs Armour felt it would be helpful in this situation for the Planning Officer to re-state what this application was for, before entering into debate, in order to help Members focus their minds specifically on this application.

30.  Mr Miller sought to address the Committee, but was advised that he was unable to do so and should make his point outside of the meeting.

Ward Member Representation

31.  Councillor Jeff Beck in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had been lobbied extensively on this application.

·         He had had a number of conversations with the Executive Portfolio Holder for Leisure.

·         In principle, there would appear to be no reason why Newbury Community Football Group should not be able to have the use of the proposed facility.

·         This would need the establishment of a working arrangement with West Berkshire Council to cover, for example, the Newbury Group bringing in portable goal posts and carrying out essential temporary pitch markings. 

·         The general public would be less likely to use the facility during autumn and winter periods, in particular late afternoon and evenings.

·         Pitch lighting existed and there was no current proposal to either remove or utilise the lighting.  If the Newbury Football Group were prepared to pay the running costs, then they should be permitted to have the use of the lighting by arrangement.  

·         The option to provide toilet facilities should still be considered, notwithstanding the running costs and potential for vandalism, as a much-needed facility particularly for families with small children.

·         Councillor Beck was in favour of the application provided there was genuine cooperation between Newbury Community Football Group and Officers, which he felt was achievable for the benefit of all parties.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

32.  Councillor Abbs asked whether Councillor Beck recalled Officers indicating the removal of the high fencing around the facilities and replacing with very low fencing therefore making it unsuitable for use as a football ground. Councillor Beck did not consider this to be something that could not be overcome.

33.  Following Mrs Armour’s recommendation that the Planning Officer re-clarify the details of this specific application only, Mr Masiiwa reiterated that the application was for full planning permission for the creation of an open space for public recreation, including the demolition of the former football clubhouse and the delivery of new parking spaces, erection of timber bollards and new fencing.  

Member Questions to Officers

34.  The Chairman sought confirmation that there was nothing in the application that could prevent, in Planning terms, the Newbury Community Football Group application – should it be approved – from going ahead, nor was there anything to prevent the Applicant proceeding with their long chain of applications should this application be refused. Mr Masiiwa agreed that if Members approved this application, the Planning Authority could also recommend approval for Newbury Community Football Group’s application. It would then be up to the landowner and Applicant to reach agreement in terms of what proposal was implemented on the site. The local planning authority would consider each application on its own merits and provide recommendation accordingly. Should this application be refused, such refusal would not prevent future applications for the wider LRIE development.

35.  Councillor Hilary Cole asked how much weight was given to new policies in the emerging plan which may have a different emphasis to current policies.  Mr Masiiwa stated that the application had been considered based on the current development plan, specifically in relation to CS18 which directly influenced the proposal, and also in relation to the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy.  In terms of the emerging policies, Mr Masiiwa said they had been awarded limited weight as they were not considered directly relevant to this proposal.

36.  Councillor Culver said in relation to paragraph 6.21 of the report, her understanding was that an Officer had written a statement of intent with regard to Monks Road, and asked whether that application should be dealt with first to ensure there was a replacement pitch before proceeding with this application. Mr Masiiwa stated that Sport England’s objection to the application centred on the Playing Pitch Strategy requirement that there was no development on the site prior to the replacement facility being in operation. As indicated in their comments, there was no loss of a playing field on the site, which was an important factor relating to their withdrawal of their objection, because the playing field was being retained, not being developed. It may be developed in the future, in which case its loss would be engaged.

37.  Councillor Culver asked if another Developer’s statement of intent would simply be accepted in lieu of them actually meeting policy requirements. Mr Simon Till said the Council was a responsible authority that published policy documents that formulated and set out its plans, those plans included management of the community facilities. Sport England's original comments required a public statement declaring the Council’s intent to carry forward the plans for a replacement facility and they seemed to have misunderstood that the Playing Pitch Strategy was an adopted policy that carried significantly more weight than simply a statement would do in terms of delivering on the Council’s objectives. In that respect the Council could be treated very differently from a private developer.

38.  Councillor Culver referenced the e-mail sent by Sport England to Mr Masiiwa the previous day in which they asked to be notified if there was going to be a Committee. This suggested they were unaware this meeting was taking place. Mr Masiiwa confirmed that copies of the Committee reports and updates had been sent to Sport England today and they would be notified of the outcome of this meeting.

39.  Councillor Abbs noted that the report set out the relevant history to this application and asked for clarification on the order in which the applications were made, i.e. did 20/01966/COMIND and 20/01530/OUT both come in before this application. Mr Till advised that the numbering system did not relate to when an application was validated, which could take place at a much later date. Mr Masiiwa said that in terms of the order of applications set out in the report, the Newbury Community Football Group applications had been submitted first.

40.  The Chairman asked about the economic benefits of this application. He noted that because this was the only part of the LRIE above the flood plain, it was designated within the master plan as the most high value element, i.e. residential, and asked if this was what the Committee should consider.  Mr Masiiwa said the focus should be on this proposal’s individual planning merits only. In terms of the economic aspects, the benefits were limited. There were some benefits in terms of the use of the parking provision by , workers and visitors, and the resulting income generation, but the main benefit was in terms of a recreation facility, which would provide a social benefit to the community.

41.  Councillor Abbs asked whether any weight should be associated with the order of planning reviews and applications. Mrs Armour did not think so in this case as the application was being considered on its own merits. If one approval had already been granted on the site, there was nothing to prevent another application being approved, or equally both applications being refused. Councillor Abbs suggested that the order in which applications were being validated was the critical date and he was surprised that this was not a sequential type of process and asked whether applications should in fact be reviewed in the correct order. Mrs Armour said this was not necessary in relation to the discussion around this proposal, and did not consider that Planning Officers had deliberately delayed any applications.

Debate

42.  Councillor Cant opened the debate. He suggested that the Committee had strayed across areas of: the process of the strategy, policy and other issues, and he felt the application deserved a platform where it could be given a proper review within the total context of the Council’s strategy and policy. He therefore proposed that the debate already undertaken was noted and that the application be referred to the District Planning Committee for consideration within the broader context. 

43.  Mrs Armour confirmed this course of action was allowed and would be acceptable within the Constitution. The Chairman noted that it would be referred due to its importance to the Applicant’s strategy.

44.  Councillor Abbs expressed support for the proposal as long as the application was then reviewed within a wider context rather than standing alone. He seconded Councillor Cant’s proposal.

45.  Councillor Culver said she did not think the proposal to refer the matter to the District Planning Committee should preclude the Committee from discussing the item this evening, as if the decision was taken to refuse the application it could be referred to the District Committee anyway. She added that as Members had discussed the application in such detail already, they should take the opportunity to vote. 

46.  The Chairman indicated that several Members of the Western Area Committee had disclosed an interest and may therefore not feel able to vote, whereas at District level, the Committee would not have any Executive Members, nor any Newbury Town Council Members, which may be helpful in terms of public perception of the transparency of the decision. 

47.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cant seconded by Councillor Abbs to refer the matter to the District Committee to make the decision. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the application be referred to District Planning Committee for consideration.