To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Team 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillors Phil Barnett, Nigel Foot and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Newbury Town Councillors and members of the Town Council’s Planning and highways committee. 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 Nigel Foot declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3(1) by virtue of the fact that he was heritage Champion for West Berkshire council and a member of the Newbury Society. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Adrian Abbs declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3(1) by virtue of the fact that he had a business based in Newbury 200 metres away. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Phil Barnett, Antony Amirtharaj, Denise Gaines, Howard Woollaston, Paul Dick, Nigel Foot, Tony Vickers and Clive Hooker declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 3(1).

 

2.

Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 103 KB

(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).

2.(1)

Application No. and Parish: 23/02094/FULMAJ - The Mall, The Kennet Centre, Newbury pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Proposal:

Full planning permission for the redevelopment of the Kennet Centre comprising the partial demolition of the existing building on site and the development of new residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and residents’ ancillary facilities; commercial, business and service floorspace including office (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g)); access, parking, and cycle parking; landscaping and open space; sustainable energy installations; associated works, and alterations to the retained Vue Cinema and multi storey car park.

Location:

The Mall, The Kennet Centre, Newbury, RG14 5EN

Applicant:

Lochailort Newbury Ltd

Eagle House 108-110 Jermyn Street

London

SW1Y 6EE

Recommendation:

PROVIDED THAT a Section 106 Agreement has been completed within 3 months (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), to delegate to the Development Manager to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION 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 the Section 106 legal agreement is not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reasons listed in section 8 of this report.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 3(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/02094/FULMAJ in respect of in respect of the full planning permission for the redevelopment of the Kennet Centre comprising the partial demolition of the existing building on site and the development of new residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and residents ancillary facilities; commercial, business and service floorspace including office (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f and g)); access, parking and cycle parking; landscaping and open space; sustainable energy installations; associated works and alterations to the retained Vue Cinema and multi-storey car park.

2.      Mr Matthew Shepherd 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, provided that a Section 106 Agreement had been completed within 3 months (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).

3.      5. Or, if the Section 106 Agreement was not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the report.

4.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. He noted the following:

·       Traffic generation from the proposal was predicted to be no higher than the Kennet Centre at its peak.

·       The proposal was likely to see higher traffic generation in the morning.

·       The VISSIM Traffic Model predicted no severe traffic impact.

·       A framework Traffic Plan had been submitted to encourage sustainable travel.

·       The existing car park was to be retained.

·       The service ramp was to be removed with the footways re-provided.

·       Two new access points were to be created on Cheap Street and Bartholomew Street.

·       Bartholomew Street South was to be made two way with the bollards moved northward.

·       The traffic lights were to be reconfigured.

·       The Framework Structure and Management Plan had been submitted.

·       They were satisfied with the number of cycle stores provided.

·       Electric Vehicle charging was at an acceptable level.

·       There was to be a net increase of 60 in the number of car parking spaces available which met car parking standards.

·       As the car park was dual use there was concern as to whether it was going to be big enough to cater.

·       It was noted that during the week it was expected that the space available was to be sufficient. However, on weekends there was the potential for overflow of up to 90 cars.

·       The car park signs would need replacing at a cost of £1,000,000, the applicant had offered to contribute £500,000 towards this.

·       The Market Street car park was underused on weekends.

·       There was an agreement to contribute to cycle routes.

·       Car parking had been resolved to a satisfactory level.

5.      The Chairman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.(1)