Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Applications 23/02520/NONMAT and 23/02544/FUL - S73A in respect of Newspaper House, Newbury.

2.    Cheyanne Kirby 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

3.    Paul Goddard had no observations to make with regards to highways’ matters.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, David Harmon, Town Council representative, Alan Pearce, objector, and Jon Dingle, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.    Mr David Harmon addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 21 August 2024

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

6.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The Environment Agency was a separate statutory consultee and would make its own judgements.

Objector Representation

7.    Mr Alan Pearce addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 21 August 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

8.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       No additional loading had been put on the drainage system, as it had been moved from one part of the development to another.

·       The applicant was entitled to change from grass to tarmac, and it would be unlikely for a challenge to stand up in court.

·       There was a lack of critical drainage infrastructure on London Road Industrial Estate.

·       The car park was permitted development, and there was no outstanding enforcement to be dealt with.

Supporter Representation

9.    No supporters were present.

Applicant/Agent Representation

10. Mr Jon Dingle addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 21 August 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

11. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The angle of the security lights pointing at the A339 carriageway would be investigated.

·       If the blue band’s location was the difference between securing approval for the permission or not, it would be a serious matter, however the applicant was inclined to agree with the Conservation Officer’s assessment that the higher blue band was not detrimental to the conservation area.

·       The signage was installed as per the approval, the blue band had been installed higher than the approved scheme by the contractor in error.

Ward Member Representation

12. No representation was made by the Ward Member.

Member Questions to Officers

13. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The Environment Agency originally objected to the self-storage units that were in the car park, but that application was withdrawn, and a new application was submitted which the Environment Agency did not comment on or object to because they did not need to be consulted.

·       The gravel would be permeable and would likely be underlaid by natural soils so it would be permeable.

·       The planning enforcement officer investigated the site and concluded that it was permitted development. The applicants included the necessary Flood Risk Assessment during the application so it could be properly assessed.

·       The six loading bays on the south elevation were for cars and small vans.

·       There were no proposed changes to the operational hours to what was previously allowed.

·       The enforcement officers considered it permitted development and was considered by the Planning Officer as a whole application. The permeable surface would be gravel.

·       The groundwater levels in the area were high, the use of permeable paving and having a filtration solution was not viable. It would incur a high cost with minimal benefit.

·       The covered cycle store would be removed, but a provision of uncovered cycle stores would remain.

·       The opening hours were approved 0800 – 1800 Monday to Friday, 0900 – 1600 Saturday, 1000 – 1400 Sunday and bank holidays.

Debate

14. Councillor Vickers opened the debate by highlighting the additional permeable area in comparison to the original scheme.

15. Councillor Dick stated that he was content with the application.

16. Councillor Abbs stated that he was concerned with the runoff and noted the lack of permeable tarmac due to the high-water level. He questioned whether it would be reasonable to ask the applicant to change the height of the blue band.

17. Councillor Foot questioned whether it could be requested that the blue band be put back to its approved position in the original application.

18. Councillor Hooker questioned why Cinch had not queried the incorrect placement of the blue band by the contractor.

19. Councillor Abbs proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report for 23/02520/NONMAT. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston.

20. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Abbs, seconded by Councillor Woollaston, to grant planning permission for 23/02520/NONMAT. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report.