Agenda and minutes

Minutes for the meetings held on 21 July and 11 August 2021 will be considered at the next meeting of the Western Area Planning Committee. This is due to the early dispatch of this agenda to accommodate the bank holiday on 30 August 2021.

The Minutes of the previous meeting were not available to review.

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.

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of the Highways and Planning Committee of Greenham Parish Council. He had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. He also declared that he was the Parish Council’s liaison with the Racecourse Residents’ Committee and lived within a mile of the site. 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 Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the Highways and Planning Committees of both Greenham Parish and Newbury Town Councils. They had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. 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 Jeff Beck  declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of the Highways and Planning Committee of Newbury Town Council. He had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application 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 Phil Barnett declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01079/COMIND in respect of Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road, Newbury for a Temporary 1 year permission: Great Newbury Christmas Carnival (with attractions including market stalls, big-top, fairground rides, Christmas tree maze, ice-rink, Santa's grotto). Associated cut and fill works were also proposal to level the centre of the Racecourse.

2.      Mrs Masie Masiiwa, Senior 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 Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the site was used to accommodate large events and the average attendance for race days was around 7,400 visitors, with the largest events attracting up to 23,000 visitors. This proposal would attract an average of 6,500 visitors per day. On weekdays, there would be 3,000–4,000 visitors, with peak arrivals in the early evening. At weekends, visitor numbers were expected to be two or three times higher, with peak arrivals in the middle of the day, but numbers would be less than for existing race meetings.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.(1)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/02993/FUL in respect of Eddington Mill House, Upper Eddington, Hungerford, RG17 0HL for a detached oak framed agricultural storage barn.

2.      Ms Cheyanne Kirby, 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 Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard did not.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Alistair Fyfe (Hungerford Town Council), and Mr John Willmott (applicant) addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.      Mr Fyfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• The application lacked necessary detail. There was no barn height specified in the report, and the Town Council was concerned about future dispute over the height if it was not clearly specified.
• A number of properties currently overlook the field on which the barn would be built, and issues would be caused by the erection of an overly tall barn.
• The Town Council was surprised by the lack of doors on the storage area of the barn, which would contain heavy machinery such as tractors, and that it would present a later security risk.
• The Town Council believed that, if the barn was over five metres tall, it was to allow for the building of a mezzanine floor in the future, which the report did not specify.
• The Site Section drawing (page 61), showed the existing and proposed ground level, and indicated there was a slope requiring the barn to sit about 0.75 metres into the slope. The Town Council believed this drawing to be inaccurate, with the photographs not adequately showing the size of the slope, and the height of the barn would be increased from the current ground level.
• Accurate topographical surveying would have been useful.
• Runoff of surface water needed to be fully considered and calculated by professionals. Properties under this postcode have previously experienced flooding, and water butts would not be adequate on a building of this size.
• The land appeared to lack a significant number of fruit-bearing trees to warrant a storage unit of this size. There were currently three alpacas and some goats on-site. The tractor was no larger than a mower, and was currently adequately stored on-site. These facts appeared to contradict the reasoning set out by the applicant.
• There was not a current business need for the construction of a barn of this size. A full business plan should have been provided to justify such a need.
• The development would amount to inappropriate annexation of the domestic land, and would open up further planning opportunities on agricultural land, which should be fully  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.(2)

This Item was withdrawn prior to the commencement of the meeting.