Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 21 February 2024 and 20 March 2024 (March minutes to follow).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2024 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

Item 3 (1) – 23/00397/OUTMAJ – Bath Road Speen

Condition 46 – Station Road Emergency Access – be amended to reflect the point agreed within the debate:

·       That the emergency access be provided either at the point when the turning head adjacent to Plots 28 and 29 had been constructed or at the point at which the 50^th unit was occupied, whichever was the earlier.

Clarification was also sought on the query raised in paragraph 15, bullet point 1 of the minutes. It was clarified that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) figure of £18,000 was for the development as a whole and not per dwelling.

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 had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of the North Wessex Downs AONB Council of Partners who would have an interest in this application. 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.

Councillor Nigel Foot declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. He reported that he would make an informed decision based on what he heard at this meeting. 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.

Councillor Antony Amirtharaj declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member and had been lobbied by residents, but reported that he would be considering the application with an open mind. Therefore, 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.

Councillor Phil Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of both Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council, and was present at a meeting of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee when this particular item was discussed. However, he reported that he would weigh up all evidence put before Members prior to any vote. 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.

(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).

The Chairman advised that it had been brought to his attention that a representative from Chieveley Parish Council and an objector had stated that they had registered their intention to speak but had not been included on the list of speakers for Agenda Item 4(2).

Members resolved to suspend standing orders to allow the Chieveley Parish Council representative and the objector to speak on the item.

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/01361/FULMAJ in respect of the proposed installation and operation of a solar farm with ancillary equipment including inverter and substation house, security cameras, deer fence, new highway access and landscaping scheme.

2.      Mr Jake Brown, Principal 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main report.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard reported that Highways Officers were satisfied with the proposed access to the site. He confirmed the additional traffic movements that were anticipated both during the construction phase and post construction.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Sam Dibas, Parish Council representative, Mr John Lynes, Mr Tom Jones and Mr Stuart Gregory, objectors, and Ms Jane Grindy, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.      Mr Dibas addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=1839

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.      Members asked questions of clarification of the Parish Councillor and received the following responses:

·       There would be the opportunity for the local community to invest in solar energy.

·       The current usage of the land was for allotments and some grazing. Residents had not raised any concern with regards to the proposed loss of allotment land.

·       The Parish Council had engaged with the local community on this proposal. Positive responses had been received to the resident survey. Residents were invited to public meetings and given the opportunity to ask questions.

·       Some of the Members of Enborne Parish Council were Trustees of the land and a potential conflict of interest was queried. Mr Dibas advised that the process had been fully transparent with public meetings and publicly available documentation. Mr Dibas had personally declared an interest as both a Trustee and Member of the Parish Council.

Objector Representation

7.      Mr Lynes, Mr Jones and Mr Gregory addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=2367

Member Questions to the Objector

8.      Members asked questions of clarification of the objectors and received the following responses:

·       The land had been used for allotments, but this had not been the case for some time.

·       The potentially high cost of decommissioning the site when the time came was of concern. It had not been made clear whether this cost would be met by the developer.

·       The proposal could be more palatable if flood alleviation conditions could be secured, but this would depend on the wording of the conditions.

·       It was confirmed that flooding continued on some areas of the site. For example, the ditch between Spring Gardens and the field  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/01577/FUL in respect of the proposed demolition of industrial units and pigsty, and the construction of 4no. residential dwellings and parking provision (pursuant to refusal 22/00106/FULD).

2.      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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main report, and a S106 Agreement. 

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the concerns raised by the local community had been noted for this rural road. However, it had been assessed by highways officers on the basis that the site previously housed a bakery. There would therefore have been many vehicles travelling to and from the site, including delivery vehicles.

4.      Should the proposal be approved, the number of vehicles was expected to decrease and vehicles were expected to be smaller in scale when compared to its previous commercial use. Refuse vehicles could access the site.

5.      The proposal was compliant with the Council’s parking standards, would provide EV charging points and cycle storage. There were no objections to the application on highways grounds.

6.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Cowan, Parish Council representative, Mr Neil Courtney, objector, and Mr David Mead, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

7.      Mr Cowan addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=8932

Member Questions to the Parish Council

8.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

9.      Mr Courtney addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=8418

Member Questions to the Objector

10.   Members asked questions of clarification of the objector and received the following responses:

·       There had been a previous proposal for two dwellings on this site. This was a much more suitable scheme but it was withdrawn due to concerns over the brownfield areas of the site.

·       The site had flooded in June 2023. This followed heavy rains and the storm drains were unable to cope.

Agent Representation

11.   Mr Mead addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=9150

Member Questions to the Agent

12.   Members asked questions of clarification of the agent and received the following responses:

·       Mr Mead was not aware of a previous proposal for two houses on this site. He stated that the number of dwellings for this proposal had reduced from six to four dwellings.

·       There were two semi-detached sheds which were shared by neighbouring properties.

·       He acknowledged that his brief as agent was to maximise the use of the land.

·       It was not particularly unusual to have obscured glass for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

Continuation of meeting

1.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 3, point 10.8, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore proceeded with Agenda Item 4(3).

2.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/02714/HOUSE in respect of a proposed two storey side extension and single storey rear extension with associated alterations.

3.      Mr Lewis Richards, 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

4.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard reported that as the access would be unchanged and the existing parking area retained, there were no objections on highways grounds.

Ward Member Representation

5.      Councillor Antony Amirtharaj addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=11985

Member Questions to the Ward Member

6.      Members asked questions of clarification and received the following responses:

·       Other dwellings in Speen Lane did have garages, but there was concern that the proposed positioning of the garage for this application would cause overlooking of neighbours.

·       The site had been in its present condition for eight months and Councillor Amirtharaj was concerned that the property would not be used for its proposed purpose and that the wall/hedging on the property would not be restored.

Member Questions to Officers

7.      Members asked questions of clarification and received the following responses:

·       Officers would not ordinarily condition space for cycle stores for a householder extension.

·       There was no longer a garage being proposed as part of the application.

·       It was the opinion of officers that imposing a condition preventing the property being converted into a HMO would be unreasonable and would contravene the six tests outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       Legislation had been changed to differentiate between permissions required for different classes of HMO.

·       The flat roof on the property was 4m deep and 3m high so would be categorised as a permitted development and therefore did not require planning permission.

·       The previous application, which was withdrawn, sought permitted development rights for more than six people. Officers advised that the property could become a six person HMO without these rights.

·       There were no parking standards for HMOs, however past appeal decisions had permitted 0.5 spaces per bedroom. The proposed parking allocation was unchanged.

Debate

8.      Councillor Hooker opened the debate by advising that he could not see any reason for the proposal to be rejected and proposed that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report.

9.      Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj seconded the motion but suggested that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)