Agenda and minutes

The Minutes from the previous meeting on 21 February 2024 are not yet available. They will be provided at the next meeting.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2024 had not been completed and would be brought to the next meeting for approval. 

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 Heather Codling declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of Cold Ash Parish Council and Ward Member for the area. She reported that, as her interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Antony Amirtharaj, Phil Barnett, Patrick Clark, Clive Hooker and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied in relation to Agenda Item 4(2).

Councillor Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council where the item had been discussed. He would however be considering the application afresh. As his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Clark declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact he was the Ward Member and knew two of the Directors of Feltham Construction personally. However, he had not discussed this matter with them. As his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee. He had been present when the application was discussed but would consider the application with an open mind. As his interest was a personal or another registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he 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 in relation to Agenda Item 4(3).

Councillor Vickers made a general declaration in relation to the Portfolio Holder for Planning being a Member of a Planning Committee. He had sought advice on this point and been assured by Legal Officers that this did not constitute a conflict of interest and was permitted by the Council’s Constitution.

Additionally, he stated that he did not intend to declare his status as Ward Member as a declaration of interest for relevant items at future meetings.

(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).

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/01916/HOUSE in respect of the erection of a single timber shed to the western side of a property in Cold Ash.

2.    Mr Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. The report detailed that the proposal was satisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Heather Codling, Parish/Town Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.    Councillor Codling in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposal contradicted the original development plan in regard to properties blocking views of the Ridge.

·         There was frustration amongst Parish Councillors that conditions placed on development plans were being overturned.

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.    Members asked questions of the Parish Council and received the following response:

·         An unacceptable fence would be one that blocked the view.

Ward Member Representation

6.    Councillor Clive Hooker, reading a statement on behalf of Councillor Paul Dick, raised the following point:

·         The recent development was granted with considerable restrictions and these restrictions should be observed.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.    Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8.    Members asked questions of the officers and were given the following responses:

·         The layout of the fence that was approved appeared to be different from what had been erected. It was advised that whilst the proposal should be considered in isolation the location of the fence was material as the location in which it had been built partially obscured the location of the proposed shed. However, the fence would still be approved in this location.

·         General amenity allowed for permitted development rights of up to 1.8m, in this case the Inspector restricted all permitted development rights in relation to the means of enclosure and outbuildings due to the visual sensitivity of the location.

·         The Committee were shown images illustrating how previous developments had obstructed views in the area.

·         Mr Till advised he was not the case officer on this application so had limited background knowledge and as a result could not comment on whether two sheds would have been approved. It was stated however that this was not relevant to the proposal in front of the Committee.

·         Considerations as to how the plans related to the visual impact on the area were material to this planning application and Members should make their determination on that basis.

Debate

9.    Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by stating that upon visiting the site he did not feel as though views of the Ridge would be affected by the proposal at all due to the ground dropping away. Councillor Vickers advised that he had originally opposed the proposal to build the dwelling but saw no reason  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

18. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/02754/OUTMAJ for a hybrid planning application seeking full planning permission for a food store with a floor area of 1800 square metres (Use Class E(a)) together with drainage, parking and associated access, infrastructure, and landscaping; and outline planning permission (matters to be considered: access) for up to 75 residential units (Use Class C3) high-capacity Electric Vehicle (EV) charging area, and residential care accommodation, containing up to 70 beds (Use Class C2), together with open space, play space, drainage, parking and associated access, infrastructure, landscape, bund on the eastern boundary with the A339, ancillary and site preparation works. Land East of Newbury College, Monks Lane, Newbury.

19.Masie Masiiwa 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the scheduled of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking as outlined in the heads of terms (Section 8 of the report).

20.Or, if the Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking was not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION.

21.The Chairman asked Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application and Paul Goddard made the following observations:

22.The majority of traffic from the development would be via Monks Lane, which had been accepted by the Highways Team. Highways Officers had reservations and would have preferred traffic to exit via the south. Referring to Page 37, Paul Goddard noted the access road through Newbury College was a private road.

23.With the access road being private, it would be difficult to enter a Section 38 adoption process within part of the residential development. Condition nine in the report ensured that the highway would be designed and constructed to an adoptable standard should it become possible in the future and would enable access by the Council’s Waste Service and Contractors.

24.There were no concerns regarding the layout of the proposed car parking for the retail store and it compared to similar stores approved across the district.

25.Not all traffic generation for the store would be new to the network. Some traffic would be pass by trips from the A339 that might stop by breaking up a journey, or linked trips that would already be visiting e.g. the college and would not be counted as they were already on the road network and accounted for.

26.Paul Goddard noted that at the bottom of page 37 there was a projected traffic generation for the various uses and totals overall. The projected traffic generation for this planning application and its impacts had not been easy to assess. 

27.The applicants Highway Consultants had worked closely with Paul Goddard on the Planning Application. An issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

88.  The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application: 23/02799/FUL which sought permission for the erection of a temporary dwelling for a rural worker.

89.  Simon Till 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

90.  The Chairman asked Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application, and Paul Goddard Responded as follows:

91.  Page 18, the access existing into the site would be improved with surfacing for the first five metres.

92.  Any increase in traffic generation would be offset by having accommodation overnight to look after the alpacas.

93.  Not expected to be much change in existing vehicle movements.

94.  Highways Officers supported the application.

95.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Conan MacDermott, applicant, and Councillor Tony Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

96.  Conan MacDermott in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The applicants had established their own business.

·         There were 24 breeding alpacas, with 12 pregnant.

·         Alpacas were induced ovulators with a very large birthing window, with stress causing miscarriages and issues within the first two to three months.

·         Living onsite would ease caring for the alpacas.

·         Caring for the alpacas required long days starting from 06:00 and often ending past 01:00 the next day.

·         Allowing the permission would support farming enterprises and diversification, and protection of a small rural business, which would be in line with Policy CS10 of the Council’s Core Strategy.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

97.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

98.  Councillor Vickers in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Concerns regarding the viability of the business.

·         Receiving temporary permission as a startup had been common.

·         Satisfied that there were no alternative accommodations on site or suitably near to the alpaca site. 

·         Uncertain the number of alpacas would be sufficient to maintain the business going forward. However, they would likely breed, and there would be more alpacas, and there would be the land available within the ownership of the family.

·         The hard work put in by the applicant had been clear.

·         Councillor Vickers supported the application.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

99.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

100.      Members asked a number of questions, and Officers responded as follows:

·         The norm for a generic temporary accommodation would be three years. The figures given to the Council would not break even at three years, however weight had been given to the rural enterprise within the countryside. A definitive business case had been submitted, supported by agricultural consultants, which stated that at year four the business would start to show a profit. Therefore, the appropriate time for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)