Issue - meetings

(Councillors Jeff Beck 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 its 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.)

(Councillor Billy Drummond declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Greenham Parish Council. 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.)

(Councillor Paul Hewer declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was employed by a Social Housing Provider. As his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter.)

In accordance with his declaration of interest Councillor Hewer left the meeting at 6.35pm.

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/01096/OUTMAJ in respect of land to the north of Pinchington Lane, Greenham.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Lucy Crofts, objector, and Ms Laura Cox (Pro Vision), Mr Simon Cook (Hydrock), Mr Peter Shepherd (BSG Ecology), Mr John Birch (Glanville), agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     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 consequently recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.     Ms Crofts in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     She lived in Water Lane and had objected to the previous application.

·                     She wished to suggest the Committee refuse the application as it was acting in opposition to the Housing Site Allocation Development Plan Document (HSADPD), which stated that these sites had a master-plan. She felt that there was no evidence of this or a plan that dealt with the cumulative traffic and ecological protection of the area, and that development was happening piece-meal.

·                     She felt that there would be road safety issues where cycle and footpaths emerged onto Greenham Road, especially for children travelling to school.

·                     She explained that the accumulated increase in traffic from all the four sites would exceed the 3% allowable maximum.

·                     The HSADPD did not suggest a need for a Greenham Road access and she saw no reason to have one.

·                     She was heartened that Councillors had been listening and that the convenant would remain in place on the public open-space, however she was unsure of its credibility, as the space was still being developed. She would like to see the Landowner working with the Fields in Trust organisation on a Deed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17