Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 8 January 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2025 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 31:

Councillor Howard Woollaston indicated that the points he had made were in relation to the retail units rather than the residential units.

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 (Legal Advisor) clarified that Members who had considered this item when it came before the Eastern Area Planning Committee could participate in the debate and vote on the item at this Committee, assuming they were not predetermined on the matter.

Councillor Phil Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had worked in the nuclear industry for a number of years, but this had been in relation to civil uses rather than weapons over the past 20 years of this time. 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 24/02147/FUL in respect of the proposed construction of a new detached bungalow following fire damage to the previous dwelling on the site with associated works.

2.    Mr Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report to Members. He explained that the application had initially been referred to the Eastern Area Planning Committee following the item being called-in to Committee by the Ward Member based on the consideration that refusal of the application would be unreasonable.

3.    The Eastern Area Planning Committee resolved to refer the application to this Committee for determination as the application, if approved, would be contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, in regards to the DEPZ issue noted in the report and the HSADPD.

4.    The report took account of all relevant planning considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion, the report detailed that the proposal was not acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the main report.

5.    However, should Members be minded to approve the planning application it would be necessary for the Committee to delegate power back to officers to resolve a matter, related to car parking, by the inclusion of a new plan in the approved details.

6.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Steven Cottrell, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent Representation

7.    Mr Cottrell addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording:  District Planning Committee - Wednesday 12 March 2025

Member Questions to the Agent

8.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         Applications had previously been submitted as follows:

o   October 2022 – this was an application (submitted by a different agent) for a replacement dwelling, which had been refused.

o   March 2023 – the application (same as the current one) was submitted and withdrawn because the local Ward Member had missed the date to be able to call in the application.

·         The property had been bought at auction, and the purchaser had already committed significant funds by the time of the fire, which they would have lost if they had not concluded the purchase. The owner believed that they would get planning permission to rebuild the bungalow.

·         Mr Cottrell was unable to confirm the exact dates for the probate process. Sales details had been submitted as part of the planning - these showed that the property had been run down and in need of significant refurbishment, but it had been complete with power and water. This type of property was considered attractive to the market.

·         Members were advised that the property had been marketed well before the arson.

·         It was confirmed that the arson had occurred in the period after the auction, but prior to completion.

Member Questions to Officers

9.    Members asked questions of clarification and were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)