Agenda and draft minutes

(The meeting was adjourned at 6:31pm, and resumed at 6:32pm in the Roger Croft Room.)

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 January 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2022, which had been approved at the previous meeting, were signed by the Chairman.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2023 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

·       Point 22 of Agenda Item 4(2) was amended to reflect that Councillor Carolyne Culver expressed surprise that it was possible to have a Part II discussion over biodiversity, not that it was necessary for the discussion to be Part II.

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 Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Carolyne Culver declared that she had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Jeff Beck, Jeff Cant, James Cole, Carolyne Culver, Clive Hooker and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

(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).

Councillor Carolyne Culver declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), by virtue of the fact that the site was within her ward. As her interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Carolyne Culver declared that she had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01336/OUTMAJ in respect of Institute for Animal Health, High Street, Compton.

2.     Ms Lydia Mather 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 comments on the ownership certificates did not raise any land ownership matters and all other matters were unchanged, had been outlined previously, and had been considered when Western Area Planning Committee had reached its resolution on 23 February 2022. Therefore, officers recommended that the Committee confirm that the application could proceed in accordance with the previous resolution subject to the completion of the Section 106 agreement, and the updated conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mike Harris, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant Representation

4.     Mr Mike Harris, Homes England, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Harris noted that the revision was due to unregistered land which had come up during the Section 106 process.

·         Mr Harris noted that the Section 106 agreement was progressing well and had been signed by Homes England. The points raised at the previous Committee meeting had been addressed, and Homes England was cooperating well with officers regarding the conditions.

Member Questions to the Applicant

5.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

6.     Councillor Carolyne Culver in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Culver noted that she was pleased that the Section 106 agreement had been signed and was with the Council.

·         Councillor Culver expressed disappointment as Ward Member that the local GP surgery had not previously taken the opportunity to respond to the consultation. Councillor Culver noted that residents were very much concerned about the increased pressure on the facility.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8.     Councillor Tony Vickers noted that he could not see any clear changes in the diagrams, and asked what changes had been made. Ms Mather responded that the diagrams were the same, but that the main issue was the ownership certificates, which had been clarified and the correct notices had been served.

9.     Councillor Adrian Abbs concurred with Councillor Vickers. Mr Dray added that this area of land had come up during the Section 106 process, and was a technicality within the legislation presented largely as an informative.

10.  Councillor Culver asked when the Section 106 agreements would be available for the Parish Councillors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.(1)

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Jeff Beck, Jeff Cant, James Cole, Carolyne Culver, Clive Hooker and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/00897/RESMAJ in respect of Land South of Tower Works, Lambourn Woodlands, Hungerford.

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 Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant reserved matters approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that matters of traffic generation and impact were considered by the Committee at outline stage and were found to be acceptable. The layout of the site and access were reserved matters before the Committee. The access route had been relocated 60 metres to the south, but remained compliant with all standards. Traffic generation had not changed, and was acceptable from a Highways perspective. Car parking provision was for 90 spaces for employees, as well as an additional ten for the museum, which was sufficient, as well as numerous electric vehicle charging points and cycle sheds. Highways therefore had no objections, and recommended approval of the planning application.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Bridget Jones, Parish Council representative, Mr Tony King, Ms Sam Coppinger, and Mr Alan Pearce, objectors, Mr Philip Walker, applicant, and Ms Elizabeth Dabell, Mr Jim Tarzey, Mr Paul Reid and Mr William Flloyd, agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     The Chairman moved to suspend standing orders to allow Ms Bridget Jones, who had not been registered to speak, to speak on behalf of Lambourn Parish Council. This motion was approved unanimously.

6.     Ms Bridget Jones, Lambourn Parish Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         In the view of the Parish Council, the inclusion of allowed aircraft movements to the application meant that there had been a material change of intended use for the building from that of a museum to that of an aircraft hangar.

·         The original application was for a private museum open up to 25 days a year. As there was no traffic data for the site within the Travel Plan, the original application was deemed unsustainable.

·         On landscaping, a line of trees had been removed from the site to allow access to the runway. This occurred after the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) consultee had submitted their opinion, which stated that the negative impacts on the environment of the AONB from the development outweighed the economic benefits.

·         The building would be particularly wide, and would disrupt the sight-lines within the AONB, out of keeping with AONB policy.

·         The turning circle provided was inadequate for larger  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.(2)