Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 16 March 2022, 06 April 2022 and 10 May 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2022 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

·         Page 9, paragraph 6 – delete unnecessary ‘was’

·         Page 7, paragraph 10 – the minutes should have indicated that the nursery facility could not be used

The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2022 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

·         Condition 4 – it had been agreed that the solar panels should have a brown hue

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 May 2022 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3), 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.

The Chairman declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), but 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.

(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 Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. 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.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/00493/FUL in respect of a new link road connecting Hectors Way to Kings Road through the Sterling Estate Development with associated retaining walls.

2.    Mr 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 Service Director – Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, or if the legal agreement was not completed by 9^th September 2022, to delegate to the Service Director - Development and Regulation to refuse planning permission, for the reasons set out in Section 8.4 of the report, or to extend the period for completion if it was considered expedient to do so.

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 link road scheme had a long history. It was covered by saved policies from the 2007 Local Plan (Trans 1A). The first part of the link road had been constructed 25 years ago, and development of the site had always been reliant upon construction of the link road. The scheme would bring significant benefits including:

·         Reduced traffic on Kings Road and Mill Lane, turning them into quieter residential streets;

·         Improved pedestrian and cycle routes through the site, connecting the racecourse development to the town centre;

·         Reduced traffic on the A339 / B3421 / Bear Lane roundabout, since traffic would be able to turn right out of Sainsbury’s;

·         Economic benefits from improved links from the Hambridge Road commercial area to the A339 and onwards to the A34.

4.     The principle, design and layout of the Link road scheme had been agreed in a previous application in 2015. Members were encouraged to focus on the proposed changes, as set out on page 3 of the update report, namely:

·         Reduction in width of the east-west section to 6.1m - this reduced the size and extent of the associated retaining wall and it was the same width as the proposed north-south section and Hambridge Road

·         Deletion of the footway on the southern side to provide an infiltration trench and connect to the surrounding drainage network. A 2m footway would be retained on the north side with crossing points.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(1)

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. 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.) 

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/03132/HOUSE in respect of Partial Retrospective: Retention of existing metal staircase to side gable end wall and addition of proposed privacy screen.

2.     Mr Scott Houston, 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.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council,  Ms Karen Munroe, objector, and Ms Amanda Olley, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.     Mr Foot in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         This application had come before Newbury Town Council on two  occasions.

·         At the meeting of 24 January 2022, the Planning and Highway Committee’s recommendation was to object due to overbearing of neighbours causing privacy concerns, and noise from the metal staircase.

·         At the meeting of 7 March 2022, the Committee’s recommendation was to strongly object for the same reasons as before. They went on to ask that the Local Planning Authority take enforcement action in this matter, since it was a retrospective application that had given neighbours no chance to object before it was built.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.     Ms Munroe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She lived at 38 Cresswell Road directly opposite the gable end shown in the photographs.

·         Members who attended the site visit could see that 80% of her property was overlooked by the staircase and door, including her bedroom and living room.

·         She had been unable to use her garden and for the last 18 months, she had had to keep her curtains and blinds shut for fear of overlooking.

·         The photographs showed that the staircase was an eyesore and the proposed privacy screen would be overbearing for her and her neighbour.

·         Three other properties were also affected, since the garden was on a corner of Cresswell Road.

·         This was a retrospective application and it was questioned whether the changes had been inspected by Building Control.

·         Ms Munroe had undertaken changes at her own home, which had required planning permission and inspections by Building Control.

·         The staircase had affected her wellbeing and day-to-day life for the last 18 months, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(2)

Members agreed that that as there was not sufficient time to determine the application at this meeting, it would need to be deferred to a subsequent meeting.