Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 24^th July and 21^st August 2024.

Consideration of the Minutes of the meeting that took place on 24 July 2024 was deferred until the next meeting of Western Area Planning Committee due to take place on 23 October 2024.

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 Adrian Abbs and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda item 4(1).

Councillor Denise Gaines and Councillor Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda items 4(1) and 4(2).

Councillor Clive Hooker declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

Councillor Vickers declared an interest in Agenda items 4(1) and (2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of the Planning and Highways Committee on Newbury Town Council which had considered this application. However, he had not been present at the meeting when the applications were discussed. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or 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(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of the Planning and Highways Committee on Newbury Town Council which had considered this application. Although he had been present when the application was discussed, he indicated that he would consider the application afresh. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter

Councillor Foot declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the current Executive Portfolio Holder for Culture, Leisure, Sport and Countryside, and was familiar with aspects of the application. He indicated that he would consider the application afresh. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the current Shadow Portfolio Holder for Culture, Leisure, Sport and Countryside. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or 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 23/02782/FULMAJ - 20 - 28A Pound Street, Newbury in respect of the proposed demolition of existing buildings (including former Jewson's site); existing dwellings 26 and 28 Pound Street; and, 28a Pound Street (former Newbury Bathroom Store) and erection of 79no. residential dwellings alongside access works, landscaping, open space, drainage and other associated works.

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 the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission provided that a Section 106 Agreement had been completed by 18 November 2024 (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), and subject to the conditions listed in section 8 of this report (or minor and inconsequential amendments to those conditions authorised by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee). OR, if a Section 106 Agreement was not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reasons listed in section 8 of this report.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application.

4.     Mr Goddard addressed the Committee, and his full representation can be found here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024.

5.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Bacchus if he had any observations relating to the application.

6.     Mr Bacchus addressed the Committee, and his full representation can be found here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024.

7.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, David Harmon, Parish/Town Council representative, and Mr Jamie Pearson, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

8.     Mr Harmon addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

9.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

10.Mr Jamie Pearson addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       There was a car park management plan, which would be part of the conditions agreed with the Highways Officer. It would be a communal car park managed by a car park management company.

·       There was a healthy mix that was split between private accommodation and affordable housing. Some of the town houses would be for social rent, there was one and two bedroom accommodation split between private and social rent, as well as some of the intermediates. The affordable housing would be spread out throughout the site, instead of being put in one part of the development.

Ward Member Representation

12.Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/02550/FULMAJ in respect of the demolition of redundant farmstead buildings, proposed new house, relocated barn, change of use of field area for re-location of solar panels and significant landscape/biodiversity.

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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. In summary it was confirmed that Highways Officers raised no objection to the proposal.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Anne Budd, Parish Council representative, Nick Wallis, supporter, and Martin Leay, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.       Ms Anne Budd addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

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

·     To clarify comments regarding part of the site being converted into a conference centre, Ms Budd stated she had first entered the structure over 20 years ago when it was still a working agricultural barn. Shortly after it was sold to the Organic Research Centre as a conference centre and offices. There had been a number of ‘bolt ons’ since, which had added to the complexity and awkwardness of the design.

·     Ms Budd elaborated on what she had meant by the ‘land invasions’, which she felt the development, if approved, would help deter. Any large expanse of land was subject to land invasion by hare coursing, theft, fire, and menace. These were all very distressing situations. The location was very close to the road and this attracted unwarranted negative attention.

Supporter Representation

7.       Mr Nick Wallis addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18^th September 2024

Member Questions to the Supporter

8.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

9.       Mr Martin Leay (Agent) addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18^th September 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·     Option A, which had involved pursuing a new scheme for converting the barn had been submitted at the preapplication stage as an option for consideration. It did not form part of the current application and would form a fall back option.

·     Regarding whether solar panels would be replaced, currently all solar panels were on the southeast face of the large agricultural barn. As part of the current application a proportion of the panels would be placed on the barn and the rest would be placed in a field area.

·     It was clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 24/01602/REG4 in respect of proposed new single storey entrance, lobby and canopy. New entrance façade cladding, new door/window openings and new roof top plant.

2.       Ms Debra Inston 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.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application and it was noted that Highways Officers had no objections to the proposals.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, David Harmon, Town Council representative, and Mr Nick Steele and Mr Tom Westerman, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.       Mr Harmon addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

6.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.       Mr Steele addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - 18th September 2024

8. Due to Mr Westerman’s request to speak being received after the deadline, the Committee voted to suspend standing orders to allow Mr Westerman to speak.
9.  Mr Westerman addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       There were approximately a dozen participants in the squash league, which was without any investment from the franchise holder to sustain those numbers.

·       The Local Authority should provide affordable access to squash courts, and Newbury Town Council also raised strong objections to the removal of the courts.

Planning Officer statement

11. Ms Debra Inston addressed the Committee and objectors regarding planning policy and of the limitations of the Committee regarding these policies. Debra Inston referred to section 55 of the Planning Act, which stated what development was and what the considerations were for determination in a planning application. The development of land could be change of use however, this did not include the operation of the interior of a building unless it was listed. Replacing the internal squash courts with sports studios would be classed as an internal operation, which would not require planning permission. The application for consideration was purely for external works to the building.
12. Standing orders were resumed.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Ms Inston stated that the planning application was not regarding internal changes, and the squash courts were only mentioned in the presentation in relation to the objections that had been raised. The objections raised by the objectors were not planning considerations.

Continuation of meeting

14.   In accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)