Issue - meetings

(Councillors Jeff Beck, Adrian Edwards and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council, and in the cases of Councillor Beck and Pick, members of the 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.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/00223/FULEXT in respect of  the erection of 71 dwellings with associated access roads and car parking, pedestrian access and parking with landscaping at land on north and east side of Pyle Hill, Greenham.

2.         Michael Butler 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 a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers firmly recommended the Committee grant planning permission with the completion of an associated s 106 planning obligation.

3.         Paul Goddard advised that Highways Officers were content with the layout and access of the proposed development, which met the Council’s parking standards. Whilst there would be an increase in traffic around the site, he did not consider the impact to be severe.

4.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Lucy Crofts, objector, and Mr Michael Cleveland, Mr Steven Smallman and Mr Peter Shepherd, applicant/agent addressed the Committee on this application.

5.         Mrs Crofts in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The site was included in the Council’s Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) and she wanted to protect the remaining agricultural land in the area from future development.

·                     The decision on the application should be deferred until the master planning for all the sites under policy HSA4 in the HSA DPD was completed.

·                     There was a lack of clarity about how the land adjacent to the site reserved for ecological benefit would be achieved under the S106 agreement. BBOWT were likely to be receptive to managing the land.

·                     There might be different ways to apply a covenant to the land which should be explored.

·                     The four sites under HSA4 would impinge on the green infrastructure which Policy CS18 in the Council’s Core Strategy sought to protect.

·                     BBOWT, Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council objected to the application due to the implications for green space.

6.         Councillor Jeff Beck asked whether it would be possible to defer a decision on the application. Michael Butler advised that the Committee could choose to defer but this would not be the advice from officers as it could delay the delivery of affordable and market housing. Officers were satisfied to recommend the application as a standalone application and it was not possible to force the multiple landowners with sites under HSA4 to submit a joint application. Derek Carnegie added that the HSA DPD created a framework for new housing in the District and the pace  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13