Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 1 March 2023 and 25 May 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2023 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 Dennis Benneyworth 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.

(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).

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that the site was situated within their ward. 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.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/02529/COMIND in respect of Ownham Farm, Newbury, RG20 8PL.

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 of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update report, comments from Natural England with regard to the Habitats Regulation Assessment and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement as a planning obligation to secure the Habitats Regulation Assessment recommendations, or, if the legal agreement was not completed by 21 September 2023, or such date as agreed in writing by the Development Control Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, to delegate to the Development Control Manager to refuse planning permission, for the reasons set out in Section 8 of the report.

3.       Mr Phil Lomax, Nutrient Neutrality Officer, addressed the Committee regarding the objection raised by Natural England, stating that the Council was required to undertake a Habitats Regulation Assessment due to the export load of phosphorous being above baseline levels. The conclusion of the Habitats Regulation Assessment was that the development would not result in any adverse effect on the integrity of the River Lambourn. Natural England had objected to that conclusion. Mr Lomax stated that the objection was an unusual step for Natural England to take rather than request further information from the Council, but that he was confident that those objections were based on misunderstandings and could be addressed.

4.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the main access to the site was via the high street, and that the access complied with all Council standards in regards to width and sightlines in both directions onto the High Street, which was more than suitable for the expected number of vehicle movements. During horse racing season, it was expected that there would be 16 cars in and 16 cars out per day, some of which would be 3.5 tonne horse boxes or 7.5 tonne lorries for deliveries. The secondary access via Ownham Lane was not suitable due to its width, so a condition had been applied to limit the use of access. The parking and site layout was considered acceptable, and therefore Highways had no objection to the application.

5.       In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(1)

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the site was situated within their ward. 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.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/02695/MDOPO2 in respect of Land South of Priory Road, Hungerford.

2.       Mr Simon Till, Team Leader – Development Control, 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 of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant approval of the deed of variation.

3.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.       Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Mr Cole noted that Hungerford Town Council thanked the Development Control Manager for calling the application in, as it would allow the decision to be made publicly.

·       Mr Cole noted that the Town Council were not experienced in this type of application, but trusted that it was acceptable, and asked the Committee to be satisfied that the shared ownership houses remained shared ownership.

Member Questions to the Town Council

5.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

6.       Councillor Dennis Benneyworth in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Councillor Benneyworth stated that the application had been called in, and that the issue was mired in legal language not digestible to the general public. By calling it in, the issue could be clarified, and reassured given that the affordable housing clause was clear.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8.       Councillor Carolyne Culver asked why the period of disposal set out in Point 1.13.2 was only six weeks long. Mr Till responded that the Council would have the opportunity to retrieve the affordable housing, either to transfer to an RP or hold it itself, within that period.

9.       Councillor Culver asked whether the First Homes policy was applicable, considering the fact that the application was approved. Mr Till responded that the First Homes policy was not applicable, as it came into effect after the legal agreement was created.

10.   Councillor Tony Vickers asked why this application had come to Committee. Mr Till responded that a number of similar cases had been through the Planning system, and had been approved, but in this case the Town Council had raised concerns.

11.   Councillor Howard Woollaston asked whether the Council was disadvantaged in any way by the proposed change. Mr Till responded that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(2)

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that the site was situated within their ward. 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.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/00584/OUT in respect of Harefield House and The Gables, Hungerford.

2.       Ms 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 report detailed that the proposal was 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 and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Russell Davidson, Senior Scientific Officer, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Davidson stated that he had studied the Mediation Statement and held a number of discussions with the applicant, and found the application to be acceptable, and would break the pathway between the contamination and receptor.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council representative, Ms Lesley Roberts, objector, Ms Gemma Perry and Mr Simon Langford, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.       Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Mr Cole stated that on one hand, the site needed to be sorted by the NHBC (National House Building Council), and that they had accepted responsibility. On the other hand, Mr Cole had read the objections, and Hungerford Town Council highlighted the parking issues affecting local residents, and the potential for the spread of contamination during works.

·       The Construction Method Statement on Condition 14 could be strengthened, particularly as the process would be long. Mr Cole asked that the Statement be adequate to ensure no further spread of contamination as a result of the works, such as potential air contamination while the earth was removed.

·       Mr Cole asked that the condition for parking set out for workers be detailed.

·       Mr Cole noted that Hungerford Town Council was concerned about residual pollution, and noted that NHBC verbally pledged that a barrier would be put in place. Mr Cole requested that that be made a condition.

·       Mr Cole noted that the Council might be liable for contamination as a result of malfunction of diggers.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.       Councillor Phil Barnett asked whether the request was for the digging area to be completely encapsulated. Mr Cole responded that it was not, and that he knew from experience that diggers could be messy and spread contamination. Mr Cole added that he was not suggesting a solution, and instead just highlighting the issue.

Objector Representation

7.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(3)