Issue - meetings

(Councillors Jeff Beck and David Allen declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and had been present at the Planning and Highways meeting where the item had been discussed however they would consider the application afresh.Councillor Jeff Beck also declared that he had been lobbied on the item. 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 Paul Bryant declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of the Newbury Society however, had not taken part in the meeting when the item had been discussed. 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.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/01795/FULD in respect of a proposal for the sub-division of 21 Western End, Newbury from a three bedroom house to two one bedroom apartments.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Kim Hodges, Parish Council representative, Anthony Pick, objector, Martin Kavanagh, supporter, Andy Butler and Chris Strang, applicant/agent and Councillor Tony Vickers as Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie introduced the Planning Officer’s report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact and recommended refusal of the application.

Derek Carnegie stated that Ward Member Councillor Tony Vickers was in support of the application, since improvements had been made as part of the appeal scheme. The previous application received by the Council in May 2012 was refused in July 2012 and an appeal was dismissed by an Inspector in May 2013.

Derek Carnegie confirmed that neither Highways or Waste services had raised concerns about the application however, as highlighted in the report Planning Officers felt that the application would result in overdevelopment of the site. The development would be out of scale and character with the existing residential development in the locality and was contrary to the Newbury Design Statement. The closest point of the development would be just one metre from the highway, which was out of keeping with the area. There were similar one bedroom flats in the area however, they were complimented by open landscaping. Other properties close by which were close to the highway were less intrusive as they had formed part of the original layout plan.

Minor improvements had been made to the proposal since it had been refused in 2012 however, the over-riding factor for Planning Officers was that the development would cause cramped living.

Officers conceded that the development would provide sustainable living arrangements being so close to the town and would also have no adverse impact on neighbours. There would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31