Issue - meetings

Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Greenham Parish Council and Newbury Town Council, however would consider the item in his capacity as a Member of West Berkshire Council and based on its merits. Councillor Swift-Hook also reported that his use of a computer during the meeting was in order to access information to the application. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Paul Bryant declared an interest in Agenda Item(s) 4(1), by virtue of the fact that he was a Trustee of Greenham Common Community Trust but reported that, 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 13/01978/COMIND in respect of Building 302, New Greenham Park, Greenham.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Tony Forward, Parish Council representative, Jeremy Bartlett and Shirley Huxtable, objectors, and Steven Smallman, Stuart Tagg and Richard Sharland, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took into consideration over ten letters of objection, which focused mainly on the impact on local residential amenity, largely noise. If approved it was likely that QTR, an organisation currently based in Reading, would occupy the site.

An application from Sainbury’s in 2002 had since lapsed and was followed by an application from Pro Logis, which had been allowed at appeal. The application if approved would mean building on part of the Pro Logis site.

The Parish Council objected to the application and continued to do so despite a number of additional provisions following an acoustics report. Michael Butler confirmed that no response had been received from Hampshire County Council, who would receive a proportion of the highways S106 money if the application was approved.

The application was considered acceptable by Officers in terms of the traffic it would generate. Michael Butler reported that verbal confirmation had been received from the applicant that an additional section of four metre high acoustic fence would be added to the site where concern had been raised.

Michael Butler concluded that the Officer recommendation was for approval of the application, subject to the completion of the s106 obligation.

Tony Forward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    QTR were not necessarily going to be the tenants of the site;

·                    The business park supported the wider community however, it was clearly stated in planning law that this should not be at any cost;

·                    The fact that residents lived next to the industrial park should not mean that they had to put up with any noise. Both West Berkshire Council and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set rules on this and World Health Organisation (WHO)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39