Agenda item

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council and their respective Planning and Highways Committees, which had discussed this application. 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.)

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Hilary Cole, Carolyne Culver and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/00114/COND1 in respect of an Approval of Details reserved by Condition 5 (Phasing Programme of Works) of Approved Application 19/00891/OUTMAJ - Section 73: of Condition 6 - Phasing of previously approved application 18/01553/OUTMAJ: Section 73: Variation of conditions to allow for the development to be phased as detailed in submitted schedule of appeal reference APP/W0340/W/14/3002040. (12/00772/XOUTMA) at land off Faraday Road and Kelvin Road, Newbury.

2.     Mrs Sian Cutts, Senior 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 Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the application was concerned with the phasing of the development. The first phase was to provide the beginnings of the access road from Calvin Way, and the development then proceeded around the site. He noted that officers had no objection to the proposed phasing.

4.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked why there was no speaker from Newbury Town Council. Mr Simon Till, Team Leader (Western Area Planning), confirmed that the Town Council was not a formal consultee, since this was a discharge of conditions application, and only key stakeholders who were involved in the technical matters of discharging the condition were usually consulted on such matters. In this case the key stakeholders would be Housing and Highways officers. He noted that Newbury Town Council had submitted comments, which were included in the update sheet.

Removal of speaking rights

5.     As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

6.     The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the remote meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

7.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from, Mr Arnold Ward on behalf of Mr Alan Pearce, objector. Mr Ward was able to attend the meeting.

8.     Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=5741&Ver=4

Objector’s Submission

9.     The Clerk read out the representation. Members did not have any questions relating to the written submission.

Ward Member Representation

10.  Councillor Jeff Beck in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had been associated with this proposed development for a number of years.

·         This application was to determine phasing for a previously approved application, and was not an application for planning permission.

·         Permission for 19/00981/OUTMAJ required an application to be made for drainage strategy and flood risk, as detailed on page 223, paragraph 6.9 of the report.

·         Residents in London Road were concerned about the risk of flooding on their land, which was already taking place. He asked the Committee to appreciate their fears that the flooding could increase to the extent that their houses could become flooded in future.

·         He supported the officer’s recommendation for approval, but asked the Committee to consider including a condition to reinforce the necessity of a further application to be made in respect of drainage strategy and flood risk.

Members’ Questions to the Ward Member

11.  Councillor Phil Barnett asked if Councillor Beck was concerned about the effects of recent developments on the north side of Newbury, which could potentially produce a surge of water impinging on this site. Councillor Beck indicated that he was unsure as to which sites Councillor Barnett was referring. The Chairman indicated that the question was not relevant to Councillor Beck’s representation.

Members’ Questions to Officers

12.  Councillor Howard Woollaston expressed concerns that the proposed office accommodation might subsequently being converted to residential use and asked if conditions could be imposed to remove permitted development rights. Mrs Cutts explained that this application was only regarding the discharge of conditions relating to the phasing of the development, and no further conditions could be imposed on the permission as part of this process.

13.  Councillor Vickers asked officers why the condition relating to the drainage of the site had not been agreed before the phasing application had been made, since drainage would need to be completed before buildings could be constructed. Mrs Cutts explained that the Planning Authority could only deal with applications in the order in which they were submitted. She noted that other pre-commencement conditions would need to be discharged before construction could start on site, including sustainable drainage. Mr Till confirmed that the sustainable drainage condition had requirements that would need to be discharged prior to construction, regardless of the order in which the information was submitted. He explained that the sustainable drainage would need to link up and function for each, and all phases. He disagreed with the objector’s assertion that a phased development would prevent a holistic view being taken of drainage on the site.

14.  Councillor Vickers asked if this would be addressed in the Construction Management Plan (CMP). Mr Till noted that the CMP and provision of works on the site, including sustainable drainage works, would need to interact with each other.

Debate

15.  Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate. She noted that the site had a tortuous planning history, but was pleased that the applicant was proposing to deliver 30 percent affordable housing on this brownfield site. She knew that officers were content with the phasing for the site, and indicated that she was happy to support the application if the commitment to the affordable housing was upheld when the development was constructed. She proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report.

16.  Councillor Barnett suggested that the needs of the district had changed since the original outline planning application was approved. He agreed with Councillor Woollaston’s concerns about potential future changes of use on the site, and suggested that the mix of uses should be considered in addition to the phasing of the development. He welcomed the affordable housing, but expressed concern about Phase Four of the development.

17.  Councillor Vickers seconded Councillor Hilary Cole’s proposal. He acknowledged that there had been concern about the housing when the development had originally been consented, but noted that it would deliver a tenfold increase in employment on the site, in addition to the housing. As such, it was a good use of brownfield land in a sustainable location. He explained that Newbury Town Council had convened a special meeting to consider this application. They felt it was important for the affordable housing and the rest of the development to proceed, but recognised residents’ concerns about drainage. He indicated that Newbury Town Council would be prepared to publish their 500 word statement in support of the application. He suggested that the process be reviewed to allow representation from Parish and Town Council’s on such matters in future.

18.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers, to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.            Condition 5 : Phasing

The details submitted in relation to Condition 5 of planning permission reference 19/00891/OUTMAJ are hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority.  To fully comply with this condition, the development must be carried out in accordance with the full terms of the condition as set out in the decision notice, and in accordance with the following approved details:

                  i.        Covering letter dated 19th January 2021, received on 20th January 2021;

                 ii.        Development Description Addendum received on 27th January 2021

               iii.        Site plan Drawing No RL14/P3/15 Rev A received on 20th January 2021;

               iv.        Location Plan Drawing No RL14/P3/31 received on 20th January 2021;

                 v.        Phasing Plan Phase 1 Drawing No RL14/P3/40 received on 27th January 2021;

               vi.        Phasing Plan Phase 2 Drawing No RL14/P3/41 received on 27th January 2021;

              vii.        Phasing Plan Phase 3 Drawing No RL14/P3/42 received on 27th January 2021;

             viii.        Phasing Plan Phase 4 Drawing No RL14/P3/43 received on 27th January 2021; and

               ix.        Phasing Plan Phase 1 Drawing No RL14/P3/39 Rev A received on 27th January 2021

Informatives

1.            CIL

The development to which these conditions relate, carries a liability to make a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment to the Council. You are advised to refer to the original approval documents and the associated Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development.  Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges.  For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil