Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 15 January 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Page 6, paragraph 4: Amend ‘Newtown Road’ to read ‘Newtown straight’.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Ieuan Tuck, David Allen, Julian Swift-Hook, Adrian Edwards and Jeff Beck declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1), and 4(3) but reported that, 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.

Councillor Swift-Hook also reported that his use of a computer during the meeting was in order to access information relevant to the application.

(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 Tuck, Allen, Edwards and Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council, however they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member o Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 13/02707/FULD in respect of 1 Dalby Crescent, Newbury.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Tony Forward, Parish Council representative, Mr Colin Fletcher, objector, and Mr Tom Brockman, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

The Chairman requested clarification as to whether there were any Tree Protection Orders on the site. Derek Carnegie confirmed that there were not.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked for confirmation of the extent to which the building height had been reduced. Derek Carnegie explained that a further review had been undertaken and this had shown the reduction to be 1 metre. The report that stated 0.5 metres was therefore incorrect.

Councillor Roger Hunneman asked what the difference was between the development of brownfield sites, and ‘garden grabbing’, and whether the Council had a policy in relation to development on gardens. Derek Carnegie replied that there was a lack of clarity about this difference and that it had become a matter for local authorities to decide. The Chairman stated that a good description of brownfield sites was ‘previously developed land’. However Derek Carnegie said that the Council did not have a policy in relation to development on gardens and that these decisions were taken on a case by case basis.

Mr Tony Forward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Newbury Town Council (NTC) had concerns over the definition of ‘brownfield’, and explained that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) specifically exclude gardens. It was NTC’s opinion that the Council should be more strict in the use of garden space for development;

·        NTC were disappointed that more information was not provided to demonstrate the impact on the surrounding area due to the density of the proposed housing;

·        Whilst it was acknowledged that the roofline had been lowered, there would remain a substantial impact as there had been no building there previously;

·        NTC believed that condition 2 should remove all permitted development rights;

·        The new application did not properly take into consideration the concerns of the Planning Inspector.

·        Councillor Swift-Hook requested clarification as to the planning rights that NTC believed should be removed. Mr Forward confirmed that he was requesting that permitted development rights be removed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.(1)

This item was withdrawn after the agenda had been published and prior to the meeting taking place and was therefore not discussed.

(Councillors Tuck, Allen, Edwards and Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council, however they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member o Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 13/01937/FULD in respect of Phoenix House, Bartholomew Street, Newbury.

The Chairman asked why the building had been listed. Isabel Johnson replied that it was for both historical reasons and its contribution to the street scene. The Chairman went on to ask whether the building could have been modified internally simply by notifying the Council if it were not listed. Isabel Johnson confirmed this would have been the case.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Phil Barnett, Parish Council representative, and Mr Anthony Pick, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Phil Barnett in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Newbury Town Council (NTC) were concerned that no Listed Building Consent had been submitted;

·        NTC were pleased to see an application being put forward for this site which was in great need of renovation and repair both internally and externally;

·        The building would contain 10 dwellings which was not of concern, however the fact that no parking had been allocated for the residents of this building was of great concern. NTC expected residents to travel away from Newbury and would therefore have a requirement for a car;

·        NTC was further concerned that there would be no contribution for open spaces.

Councillor Hunneman asked Mr Barnett to clarify his remarks regarding parking. Mr Barnett explained that a large number of resident parking permits had been issued in the area and this raised a concern as to whether new residents would be able to obtain a permit, and if they were able to, whether there would be sufficient parking spaces for them in the vicinity.

Referring to the following speaker, the Chairman commented that Mr Anthony Pick had been shown as an ‘additional speaker’ outside of the Council’s permitted categories of speaking. Taking legal advice on the application of the Council’s constitution, the Chairman asked Mr Pick to speak as an objector, Mr Pick agreed.

Mr Anthony Pick, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        This was a landmark building, important to the street scene, and he was therefore glad that this application had been submitted;

·        There were concerns that once the building had been returned to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.(3)

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Western Area Planning Committee.

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Western Area.