Issue - meetings

(Councillors Tuck, Allen, Edwards and Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council, however they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member o Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/02707/FULD in respect of 1 Dalby Crescent, Newbury.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Tony Forward, Parish Council representative, Mr Colin Fletcher, objector, and Mr Tom Brockman, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

The Chairman requested clarification as to whether there were any Tree Protection Orders on the site. Derek Carnegie confirmed that there were not.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked for confirmation of the extent to which the building height had been reduced. Derek Carnegie explained that a further review had been undertaken and this had shown the reduction to be 1 metre. The report that stated 0.5 metres was therefore incorrect.

Councillor Roger Hunneman asked what the difference was between the development of brownfield sites, and ‘garden grabbing’, and whether the Council had a policy in relation to development on gardens. Derek Carnegie replied that there was a lack of clarity about this difference and that it had become a matter for local authorities to decide. The Chairman stated that a good description of brownfield sites was ‘previously developed land’. However Derek Carnegie said that the Council did not have a policy in relation to development on gardens and that these decisions were taken on a case by case basis.

Mr Tony Forward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Newbury Town Council (NTC) had concerns over the definition of ‘brownfield’, and explained that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) specifically exclude gardens. It was NTC’s opinion that the Council should be more strict in the use of garden space for development;

·        NTC were disappointed that more information was not provided to demonstrate the impact on the surrounding area due to the density of the proposed housing;

·        Whilst it was acknowledged that the roofline had been lowered, there would remain a substantial impact as there had been no building there previously;

·        NTC believed that condition 2 should remove all permitted development rights;

·        The new application did not properly take into consideration the concerns of the Planning Inspector.

·        Councillor Swift-Hook requested clarification as to the planning rights that NTC believed should be removed. Mr Forward confirmed that he was requesting that permitted development rights be removed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43