Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 20 March 2024, 24 April 2024 and 9 May 2024.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2024 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the following amendment:

·         Paragraph 73 should note that Councillor Barnett had concerns with the retail store in relation to the stores in the nearby retail park. 

The Minutes of the meetings held on 24 April 2024 and 9 May 2024 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 Clive Hooker declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as he had been lobbied on the matter 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.

Councillor Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as he had been a Member of the Western Area Planning Committee that decided the previous application, 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.

The Chairman declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), as he had spoken to the parties involved with the application, 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.

The Chairman declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), as he was a Member of the Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council planning committees that approved the application, 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.

Councillor Nigel Foot declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), as he was a Member of the Newbury Town Council Planning Committee that approved the item, 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.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3), as he was a Member of Newbury Town Council and had proposed for the development to be approved in 2009, 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.

(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 24/00491/FUL in respect of the demolition of the existing structurally compromised cottage and provision of a replacement cottage, with provision for access and related landscaping at Greengates, Front Street, East Garston.

2.    Ms Cheyanne Kirby 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 recommended that the Development Manager 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, Deana Carpenter, Parish Council representative, Lindsey Mason, objector, Howard Porter, applicant/agent, and Councillor Hooker, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.    Ms Carpenter addressed the Committee, her full representation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhQEXtlzgY

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         The setting back of the cottage would change the aesthetic of the village and its current position encouraged cars to slow down.

·         Objectors would withdraw their concerns if the access route was in the same position as the temporary route.

Objector Representation

6.    Ms Mason addressed the Committee, her full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=1616

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·         Multiple windows would overlook Ms Mason’s property and infringe on her privacy.

·         The conditions put on the kerb and the hedge would be difficult to enforce long term.

Applicant/Agent Representation

8.    Mr Porter addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=2130

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

9.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         The appeal for the previous application was still in process.

·         The existing access could be improved, and the existing wall needed to be protected, which was why the applicant opted for the left-hand access.

·         Most tiles on the roof were not reusable.

Ward Member Representation

10.Councillor Hooker addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=2636

Member Questions to the Ward Member

11.Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

·         The new application added an additional 2.5 metres to the property, towards the access.

Member Questions to Officers

12.Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         If the hedge was to be conditioned, enforcement notices could be actioned if it was overgrown and then West Berkshire Council (The Council) could cut it to an appropriate size.

·         The public benefit of the application outweighed the potential low-level harm outlined by the Conservation Officer.

·         Paragraph 6.13 of the report aimed to be a best possible case and the condition would allow the Council to control the type of bricks used.

·         Highways were satisfied with the proposed access as it improved an existing access.

Debate

13.Councillor Hooker opened the debate by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.  The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/01899/FUL in respect of the change of use of land for 2 Gypsy/Traveller pitches comprising the siting of 1 mobile home, 1 touring caravan, and the proposed erection of 1 dayroom per pitch at Land West Of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water.

2.  Ms Kirby 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 Development Manager 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, Chris Garrett, Parish Council representative, Edward Evelegh and Alex Pearce, objectors, Peter Brownjohn, applicant/agent, and Councillor Dennis Benneyworth, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.    Mr Garrett addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=5821

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

·         Mr Garrett had not experienced flooding at the site.

Objector Representation

6.    Mr Evelegh and Mr Pearce addressed the Committee, their full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=6116

Member Questions to the Objector

7.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

·         The Ecological Surveyor for the application only assessed the site on one evening, which was why they did not find anything.

Applicant/Agent Representation

8.    Mr Brownjohn addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=6647

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

9.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

a.    The site was outside of settlement boundaries as the cost of land was cheaper outside settlement boundaries and land inside settlement boundaries usually went to housing. 

Ward Member Representation

10.Councillor Benneyworth addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=7122

Member Questions to the Ward Member

11.Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

12. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         Paragraph 5.24 of the report set out the Council’s need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches.

·         The Council must maintain a five-year supply of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers.

·         Planning Policy had conducted calls for Gypsy and Traveller sites and the sites offered were considered sub-standard.

·         The stop notice was temporary, and enforcement would not take place until the application decision had been provided.

·          The site in the application was not an allocated site, but policy CS7 stated, where sites fulfilled the relevant criteria for Traveller and Gypsy pitches in the countryside, the application would be considered.

·         National policy aimed to avoid sites for Gypsies and Travellers that were secluded for inclusion and sustainability reasons. The application site was not considered isolated based on previous appeal decisions.

·         Conditions could be applied to the number of families per pitch; however the Committee would need a planning reason  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 23/01100/RESMAJ in respect of the application for approval of Reserved Matters following Outline Approval 14/03109/OUTMAJ - Section 73: To vary condition 32: No more than 250 dwellings shall be completed prior to the completion and opening to traffic of a new bridge, to 421 dwellings. Of approved reference 09/00971/OUTMAJ for redevelopment of Newbury Racecourse to provide new and enhanced leisure, racing, administrative and visitors facilities; new hotel and hostel; replacement children's nursery; permanent retention of the Mill Reef Stand; replacement maintenance buildings, yard and workshops; replacement golf club house and apartment, floodlit driving range and remodelling of golf course; up to 1,500 dwellings at Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road, Newbury.

2.    Mr Jake Brown 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 Development Manager 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, Suzanne Hyde, objector, Georgina Mortimer, applicant/agent, and Councillor Phil Barnett, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4.    Ms Hyde addressed the Committee, her full representation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhQEXtlzgY

Member Questions to the Objector

5.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

·         If there was to be a space provided for community events the objector would like to see a public club house or exercise space.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.    Ms Mortimer addressed the Committee, her full representation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhQEXtlzgY

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·         The number of spaces for the car club were calculated in partnership with Enterprise.

·         There was no community centre proposed within the Section 106 Agreement.

·         One block would be social rented, one block would be shared ownership and one block was to be shared private ownership and shared ownership.

·         Changes to the plans were made due to the need to reduce the carbon footprint, the implementation of new regulations and the increased cost of concrete.

·         Heating would be supplied by gas boilers combined with photovoltaic (PV) panels.

·         Some dwellings would come with disabled parking; however the applicant was unsure whether visitor parking would.

Ward Member Representation

8.    Councillor Barnett addressed the Committee, his full representation can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/fAhQEXtlzgY?t=12166

Members Questions to Ward Member

57.Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Continuation of meeting

58.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 continued with Agenda Item 4(3).

Member Questions to Officers

59. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·         The application was assessed against current policy, however the application was a reserved matters application, so some aspects had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)