To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Issue - meetings

Application Number and Parish:

Meeting: 17/01/2018 - Western Area Planning Committee (Item 37)

37 Application No. and Parish: 17/02524/FULEXT Land West of New Road, North of Pyle Hill, Newbury pdf icon PDF 147 KB

Proposal:

Erection of 36 dwellings with associated roads, amenity open space, and access to New Road.

Location:

Land West of New Road

North of Pyle Hill

Newbury

Applicant:

Rivar Limited

Recommendation:

The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT conditional planning permission, subject to the first completion of a s106 planning obligation.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(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 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 that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4 (1.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/02524/FULEXT in respect of the erection of 36 dwellings with associated roads, amenity open space, and access to New Road on land West of New Road, North of Pyle Hill, Newbury.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Lucy Crofts’, objector, and Mr Steve Smallman (Pro vision), Mr John Hanlon (Glanville), Ms Judith Giles (BSG Ecology), applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Michael Butler introduced the report and update sheet 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 justified. Officers on balance recommended that Committee approve planning permission.

4.            He drew the Committee’s attention to additional conditions included in the update sheet which would be required should the Members be minded to approve the application.

5.            The Chairman noted that there was not a representative from the Parish Council and that this was disappointing. Councillor Billy Drummond explained that an extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council had been called that evening.

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

·      Ms Crofts’ objections to the other sites in this area were rejected on the premise of site allocation and ownership. However, Rivar and David Wilson homes either owned or had a controlling interest in all the sites. She therefore saw no reason why the sites could not be brought together. The developer’s statement in 2012 was that the sites would be comprehensive, coherent and have major community benefits; creating a cohesive neighbourhood, which would protect and enhance the countryside.

·      She felt strongly that it was a cop-out for Officers to say that this master-plan could not be delivered because of land ownership.

·      She questioned what the large swathe of private land in between the sites was for. Currently, it was the desired route for children travelling between playgrounds. Many people walked their dogs there. People ignored the private land signs. She felt the Council had a short-sighted approach and should resolve the problem of land ownership and put in the necessary footpaths.

·      The landscape was open grassland and Ms Crofts was concerned that the large number of trees suggested in the planting design, would detrimentally change the area, for the people who used it and the wildlife it sustained.

·      A fellow Greenham resident had asked for clarification on the meaning of the hedging term ’gapping up’.

·      She asked that the developer provide the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37