Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 13 November 2024.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Item 3(1) – The Mall, The Kennet Centre, Newbury – Paragraph 19:

Councillor Howard Woollaston pointed out that the commercial units proposed with this application would be an enhancement compared to those already in place as part of the Market Street development.

Paragraph 24

Councillor Adrian Abbs highlighted that not all of the points he raised at this stage of the meeting were captured in the minutes.

Nicola Thomas (Service Lead – Legal and Democratic Services) explained that minutes were not intended to provide a verbatim record of proceedings, rather a summarised record. Councillor Abbs felt that the minutes did not make clear his concerns in enough detail and gave too much emphasis to the one positive point he made on the application. He made clear that at the previous meeting his level of objection far outweighed the single positive aspect that he highlighted. His level of concern contributed to his proposal to refuse planning permission.

Paragraph 49

Ms Thomas clarified that the meeting held on 13 November 2024 was technically adjourned rather than closed at 10.30pm. However, since that time, substantial further information had become available which needed to be brought before the Committee and therefore the item was being considered afresh.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Nicola Thomas (Service Lead – Legal and Democratic Services) advised that no declarations of interests had been received in advance of today’s meeting. However, given this matter had been considered by the District Planning Committee previously on 13 November 2024 and Members might have been present for that meeting, all Members were reminded that this meeting was considering the application afresh as there was new information before the Committee. Whilst not a declarable interest under the Council’s Constitution, Members were reminded to approach consideration of the application with an open mind. Should any Member feel unable to adopt this position, they were advised to provide their apologies for the Committee.

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeremy Cottam, Denise Gaines, Justin Pemberton, Richard Somner, Tony Vickers and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1) since the last meeting to discuss the planning application held on 13 November 2024.

Councillor Nigel Foot declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. He was also the Heritage Champion for West Berkshire Council. He reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. He explained that he had not participated in Town Council discussions on this particular application. He had however done so when a previous application for the site was considered. He reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications).

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/02094/FULMAJ in respect of the full planning permission for the redevelopment of the Kennet Centre comprising the partial demolition of the existing building on site and the development of new residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and residents ancillary facilities; commercial, business and service floorspace including office (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f and g)); access, parking and cycle parking; landscaping and open space; sustainable energy installations; associated works and alterations to the retained Vue Cinema and multi-storey car park.

2.    Mr Matthew Shepherd (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report to Members. He explained that the application had initially been referred to the Western Area Planning Committee by the Development Manager due to the level of public interest and due to the level of objection.

3.    The Western Area Planning Committee deferred the item to this Committee due to its district wide implications.

4.    Mr Shepherd highlighted updates to the application since it was previously considered by the District Planning Committee on 13 November 2024:

·         On 12 December 2024, the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This resulted in an increased housing requirement for West Berkshire. The planning balance and conclusion of the report had been updated to reflect this.

·         An updated consultation response had been received from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) with regard to the height of the proposed buildings. The HSE raised no objections. They considered that the fire safety statement produced by the applicant to be acceptable at this stage of the planning process. Comments in relation to building regulations would come at a later stage but this fell outside of planning considerations.

·         The Newbury Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) was adopted by the Council on 28 November 2024. Officers had assessed the proposal against the CAAMP and remained of the view that less than substantial harm would be caused by the development.

5.    In terms of the planning balance, benefits included that the proposed housing (427 dwellings) would be in a sustainable location, links to and from the railway station would be improved, the attractive design would enhance the street scape as would the street proposed to run through the development. These areas were given significant positive weight.

6.    Significant negative weight was given to the absence of affordable housing. However, this was reduced as the application was not considered viable with affordable housing included. Great weight also needed to be given to the impact on heritage assets, although the Conservation Officer had given their view that this created less than substantial harm. Negative weight was also given to the amenity space of future occupants.

7.    A further consideration in the planning balance was that at the present time, the Council was unable to evidence its five year housing supply. This factor had tilted the balance further in favour of the recommendation to grant planning permission.

8.    Officers felt that the planning benefits of the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)