Agenda item

(Councillors Tuck, Allen, Beck and Bairstow declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council who had previously considered the application, 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(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council who had previously considered the application, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. He also reported that the agent for this application was also acting for Greenham Parish Council and he therefore had a professional connection. As his interest could be perceived to be prejudicial but was not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate but would not vote on the matter).

The Committee agreed that an objector to Agenda Item 4(2) be allowed to speak as he believed he had made it known that he wished to speak prior to the meeting, but had not been included on the list of speakers.

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 12/02884/FULEXT in respect of the redevelopment of existing sports facility, and erection of 40 dwellings, with associated parking, garages, access and landscaping.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Phil Barnet, Parish Council representative, Mr David Mundy, objector, Mr Sean Bates, supporter, and Mr Steven Smallman, Mr Max Wildsmith and Mr Phil Taylor, applicants/agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

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

·        Whilst a development of 40 houses would be a benefit to families, Newbury Town Council (NTC) remained concerned that there would be no affordable housing provided;

·        The parking provision of two cars per dwelling appeared acceptable, however there was concern that this would result in a significant increase in car movements on Greenham Road;

·        NTC were concerned about the effect of root disturbance on surrounding trees during the construction on the site.

Mr David Mundy in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        The provision of a further 40 dwellings was a positive action, but Mr Mundy believed that it would disenfranchise the 1800 members of Greenacres, in particular senior citizens who considered the centre a community hub;

·        Mr Mundy was also concerned that no affordable housing was being proposed.

The Chairman requested confirmation that Mr Mundy would want a short gap between the availability of the two leisure facilities. Mr Mundy requested a seamless transition.

Mr Sean Bates advised the Committee that he no longer wished to speak in relation to this application as he had raised all relevant points during the previous application.

Mr Steven Smallman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        In Mr Smallman’s opinion, this application, and that for Monks Lane were inextricably linked as the development of one would provide the finance for the other.

Liz Patient advised Mr Smallman that the application for Monks Lane had already been decided, and it would be the approval of this application, on the Greenacres site, that would cause a link to be established between the two sites. Liz Patient went on to advise the Committee and the applicant that the Committee were only concerned with planning issues. The financial connection to the new sports facility was only relevant to the extent that it impacted on the viability assessment relating to the provision of affordable housing on this site at Greenacres. The funding of the new sports facility without planning permission for the housing on this site was a matter of commercial viability.

Michael Butler clarified that Officers had made their recommendation on the basis of there being no affordable housing on the site.

Mr Smallman suggested that the discussion should therefore consider whether it was appropriate that no affordable housing provision had been made. He commented that a viability assessment had shown that the scheme could not sustain affordable housing, and stated that an otherwise sound development should not be prevented by planning obligations.

Councillor Cole commented that it was unfortunate that the Committee had not had sight of the viability assessment. Councillor Cole appreciated the confidentiality of such information, but suggested that, as affordable housing was a flagship policy for the Council, Members should be appraised of all the facts, in order to make a fully considered decision. Councillor Swift-Hook recalled occasions when viability assessments had been disclosed. Mr Smallman explained that there were two methods for undertaking the assessment; an academic approach which used standardised figures, but was less accurate. The preferred method was to use actual costs, but this would necessarily be confidential.

Councillor Hunneman suggested that a smaller number of affordable houses be provided if the full 40% was not viable. Mr Smallman responded that no affordable housing would be viable.

Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor Swift-Hook raised the following points:

·        The development appeared to be satisfactory in relation to density, types and styles of housing, and for parking spaces;

·        There remained concerns regarding the loss of the Greenacres leisure centre, but Councillor Swift-Hook appreciated that this application had now been decided;

·        To approve this application would change the allowable use of the land, and Councillor Swift-Hook had not been persuaded that the closure of Greenacres would be beneficial;

·        The location of some of the proposed dwellings would overlook existing houses in Night Owls. These dwellings should be realigned to avoid excessive impact;

·        The greatest concern was the lack of affordable housing provision. This was the second development within the Greenham area in a relatively short time where affordable housing had been forgone. Councillor Swift-Hook suggested that an alternative arrangement be considered to ensure affordable housing was provided, perhaps by following the example of the Parkway development and utilising the off site affordable housing pot;

[10:00pm - The Committee agreed to continue the meeting and conclude by 10:30pm]

·        Councillor Swift-Hook suggested that a legal agreement be put in place linking the two applications to ensure that Greenacres would not be demolished until the Monks Lane site was complete.

Michael Butler assured the Committee that the separation distances between houses had been checked and complied with the minimum distance.

Michael Butler advised the Committee that should they wish to consider the provision of affordable housing through alternative means, this would almost certainly require the application to be deferred. Should affordable housing be a requirement, a new application would be required to be submitted to take into account the positioning of the affordable plots.

Derek Carnegie responded to Councillor Swift-Hook’s final point by commenting that this approach would advocate the refusal of applications where viability assessments had shown that affordable housing could not be supported. He advised that it was likely that the Planning Inspector would consider appeals to these decisions on a wider package of information, and the numerous benefits would likely result in the Planning Inspector accepting an appeal.

Councillor Cole agreed that the lack of affordable housing was an issue, and was concerned that a sound decision could not be made when significant information relating to the viability assessment was not available. Additionally, Councillor Cole asked whether it was right that the debts held by the Rugby Club should be cleared at the expense of the provision of affordable homes. Councillor Cole considered that the application should be deferred.

Councillor Hunneman agreed that affordable housing was paramount and that information relating to viability should be made available.

Councillor Jeff Beck proposed that the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission be accepted. The Chairman seconded the proposal.

At the vote the proposal was lost. Councillor Swift-Hook abstained from the vote.

The Chairman asked whether viability information could be viewed as a Part II – confidential – item. Officers were not able to answer this.

Councillor Cole proposed that the application be deferred until investigation work had taken place to establish how viability information could be shared with the Committee. Councillor Allen seconded the proposal.

At the vote the proposal was carried. Councillor Swift-Hook abstained from the vote.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred in order to allow Officers to obtain further information relating to viability.