Issue - meetings

Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that was the local Ward Member. 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.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth, Carolyne Culver and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/03083/COMIND in respect of a change of use to Class B8 at Land Adjacent to the M4, Membury Airfield, Hungerford.

2.     Mr Jake Brown (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director – Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Gareth Dowding (Principal Engineer – Traffic and Road Safety) if he had any observations. No highways issues were raised.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Bridget Jones, Parish Council representative, Mr Alan Peace and Mr Richard Bobrucki, objectors, and Mr Andrew Turvill, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

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

·         Lambourn Parish Council had serious concerns about the impact of this proposal on the road network, emergency access to the M4, residential amenity and the environment within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·         The case officer had acknowledged that the site was agricultural land outside the Protected Employment Area (PEA).

·         The previous application had lapsed and so this was a greenfield site, which should have been restored – the applicant had stripped the topsoil, imported additional material and created a large bund prior to submitting the current application. This was not conserving / enhancing the site within the AONB.

·         The claim that biodiversity would be enhanced was considered insulting, since the applicant had already destroyed it. Environmental screening had been done for another application and only covered a third of the site. The screening exercise which had determined that this was not an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development was done after the applicant had destroyed the green field.

·         Since 2018, when the previous permission had been granted, the number of HGVs using access roads to this site had more than doubled and the Walkers Logistics Plan would add hundreds more.

·         Highways had highlighted the lack of public transport and the dangers of walking and cycling on Ramsbury Road, which made the site unsustainable.

·         Cumulative impacts of further development affected local villages, especially between the site and Junction 14 of the M4, yet planners did not consider the effects sufficient to give rise to concerns. However, residents did have concerns and complaints about noise, obstruction and out of hours working had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17