Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 20 July 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 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.

Councillor Adrian Abbs declared that he was the Ward Member for Agenda Item 4(1).

Councillor Jeff Cant declared that he was the Ward Member for Agenda Item 4(2).

Councillors Phil Barnett and Jeff Beck declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(2), 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 date and vote on the matters.

Mr Paul Goddard declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as he knew the applicant on a professional level, but reported that the application had no highways implications and he would not be required to speak on the matter.

Ms Sharon Armour declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as she knew the applicant on a professional level, but reported that she would remain impartial during the course of consideration of the matter.

Mr Simon Till declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as he knew the applicant on both a personal and professional level, and reported that he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

(Councillor Adrian Abbs declared that he was the Ward Member for Agenda Item 4(1).

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Jeff Beck 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. 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.)

(Mr Paul Goddard declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as he knew the applicant on a professional level, but reported that the application had no highways implications and he would not be required to speak on the matter.)

(Ms Sharon Armour declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as she knew the applicant on a professional level, but reported that she would remain impartial during the course of consideration of the matter.)

(Mr Simon Till declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as he knew the applicant on both a personal and professional level, and reported that he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.)

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/01556/HOUSE in respect of 11 Valley Road, Newbury.

2.       Mr Patrick Haran, 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 proposal was considered acceptable in planning terms, and officers recommended that the Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main report.

3.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.       Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Newbury Town Council did not have any objection to the application, but Mr Foot would be willing to answer any questions.

Member Questions to the Town Council

5.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

6.       Councillor Adrian Abbs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Councillor Abbs stated that the application was in a beautiful area, and the proposed extension would enhance family life. He was keen to encourage and support this type of application.
• Councillor Abbs stated that there was minimal reason to oppose the application, and that it was only before the Committee in the interest of due diligence.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Debate

9.       Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate by stating that there are no signs of objection by neighbouring residents, and no need for additional conditions.

10.   Councillor Jeff Cant stated that he appreciated the need for due diligence, but it was a modest extension, and would have been approved but for the fact that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(1)

(Councillor Jeff Cant declared that he was the Ward Member for Agenda Item 4(2).

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Jeff Beck 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. 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 22/01643/TELE56 in respect of the junction of Stoney Lane and Turnpike Road, Newbury.

2.       Mrs Sian Cutts, 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 proposal was acceptable in planning terms, and officers recommended that the Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to approve the siting and appearance, subject to the conditions outlined in the main report.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the proposal was on a public highway, and was not unusual. The proposal would be placed on a footway on a corner, and so would not restrict pedestrian thoroughfare. The proposal would not obstruct any sight lines around the junction. Therefore, Highways had no objection.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, and Mr John Softley, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.       Mr Nigel Foot, Newbury Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Mr Foot noted that Mr Gary Norman was present at the site visit but was unable to attend the meeting.
• Mr Foot stated that the application came before Newbury Town Council, which determined that it required a full application as it did not comply with the Code of Practice for wireless network development, or the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Council also determined that a green colour would be more appropriate.
• Mr Foot stated that the applicant had not engaged in consultation with local planning authorities, residents and stakeholders to a satisfactory degree. Newbury Town Council’s request for a presentation explaining the choice of siting was not responded to.
• A joint press statement from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities stated that the applicant must have permission from the land owner and the approval of local planning authorities for the development of 5G masts.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.       Mr John Softley in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• Mr Softley lived at 6 Turnpike Road, which was directly opposite the proposed development, and was not on principle opposed to development, and used the technology himself. However, he believed that the application should be subject to the full planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.(2)

Agenda Item 4(3) was deferred to a future meeting of the Committee post publication of the Agenda.