Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 2 March 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2022 were considered. 

Councillor Tony Vickers said the reference to “WAPC’” on page 16, second paragraph, should be amended to read “Newbury Town Council”.

Councillor Vickers said he had asked at the previous meeting, in the interests of transparency, for the point to be minuted as to whether Councillor Alan Law, who had chaired the meeting, would declare the fact that in a previous role on the Council he had been the Executive Member that signed off the foreclosure of the lease on the football club at Faraday Road as there was a link between the two sites. Councillor Vickers was advised that his request for this to be included in the minutes would be considered and he wanted to know why it was not included bearing in mind there was now a judicial review.

Kim Maher said the responsibility of the inclusion was at the discretion of the Clerk and suggested approval of the minutes should be deferred in order to address this point. Stephen Chard said he had asked the Monitoring Officer whether to include the point Councillor Vickers had raised and the advice was that it was for individual Members to declare their interests rather than them being highlighted by another Member of the Committee. Councillor Vickers referred to an email exchange he had held with the Monitoring Officer on the matter where this same advice was given, but it had not been made clear to him what the outcome would be.

Councillor Pask said that despite the Monitoring Officer’s advice, he would defer signing the minutes in the interests of transparency.

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.

Councillor Pask said this application had been referred to the DPC having previously been considered at the EAPC and some of the Members of that Committee were also Members of the DPC. Councillor Pask confirmed, for the benefit of those viewing proceedings, that Councillors were not precluded from being a Member of this Committee simply because they had previously considered the application in another forum either at the Area Planning Committee or at a Town or Parish Council meeting, provided they had come to this meeting to consider the application afresh and with an open mind. This was covered in the Council’s Code of Conduct and the Code of Conduct for Planning, both of which were located at Part 13 of the Constitution.

Councillor Pask declared that he was at the EAPC and had been lobbied at that stage by all sides of those making representations but had not been lobbied this time. He also declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he was a member of BBOWT who had been consulted on the application. 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 Alan Macro declared he was at the EAPC and had also been in recent contact with one of the objectors but would approach this evening’s proceedings with an open mind.

Councillor Geoff Mayes declared he was at the EAPC. He also declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he was a member of BBOWT and the CPRE but he would be considering the matter afresh. 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 Graham Bridgman declared he was lobbied prior to the EAPC meeting, but had not been lobbied since. He also declared that he was predisposed, but not predetermined, on this application.

Councillor Richard Somner declared he was at the EAPC. He also declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he was the Portfolio Holder for Planning and was a Holybrook Parish Councillor. 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 Tony Vickers declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum which had a considerable interest in active travel and rights of way which he would likely refer to during the meeting. 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.

(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).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 19/00113/OUTMAJ in respect of land east of Pincents Lane, Tilehurst.

Ms Lydia Mather, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members. The proposal was as follows:

·      Outline Application:

o   for up to 165 dwellings on the western part of the site;

o   450sqm (GIA) of floorspace building in use class E;

o   Engineering operations within outline area.

o   Matters for consideration: access which included a section of single carriageway, replacement of the bollards to be located further north along Pincents Lane to prevent access beyond the site, a turning head beyond the site for refuse collection and other large vehicles, an emergency services only access point to be located where there was an existing farm vehicle access gate, and a cycleway alongside, but separate from, the existing, and to be retained, public right of way, which ran east-west across the site.

o   Reserved matters not for consideration: landscaping, layout, scale and appearance

·      Full Application:

o   Change of use of eight hectares of the eastern part of the site to public parkland, proposed to be protected from development in perpetuity. 

The application was before Committee due to Ward Member call-in whether the recommendation was to approve or refuse, more than ten letters of objection and more than 20 signatories to a petition.

Officers had been made aware that a request had been received by the Secretary of State to call-in the application for their determination which they could do if Committee resolved to grant planning permission. 

The site was outside of the settlement boundary but immediately adjacent to that of Tilehurst along its eastern boundary. The southern boundary was adjacent to the recreation ground and the designated retail and warehousing area which included Sainsbury’s. The western boundary was adjacent to Turnhams Green Business Park and included access to the site off Pincents Lane. The northern boundary was adjacent to Pincents Lane, with the AONB terminating to the northern side of that road, and adjacent to fields which were outside of the AONB and the rear gardens of Seventh Avenue. There was a public right of way through the east to the west of the site and another to the eastern boundary along with a claimed path through the site north to south roughly from the back of Seventh Avenue to a pedestrian access point from the recreation ground.

The whole of the site was within a bio-diversity opportunity area, there were individual and group Tree Preservation Orders and the site was in an area of potential archaeological interest. Pincents Manor Hotel, near the access point, was a listed building. There were potential mineral deposits on the site and part of the site was at risk of flooding from surface water.

With regard to the principle of the development, current adopted policies ADPP1 and ADPP4 were spatial policies setting out the hierarchy of settlement and development was to be distributed across the district. ADPP4 related to the eastern area which stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(1)