Agenda item

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/02782/FULMAJ - 20 - 28A Pound Street, Newbury in respect of the proposed demolition of existing buildings (including former Jewson's site); existing dwellings 26 and 28 Pound Street; and, 28a Pound Street (former Newbury Bathroom Store) and erection of 79no. residential dwellings alongside access works, landscaping, open space, drainage and other associated works.

2.     Mr Jake Brown 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 provided that a Section 106 Agreement had been completed by 18 November 2024 (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), and 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 a Section 106 Agreement was not completed, to delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reasons listed in section 8 of this report.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application.

4.     Mr Goddard addressed the Committee, and his full representation can be found here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024.

5.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Bacchus if he had any observations relating to the application.

6.     Mr Bacchus addressed the Committee, and his full representation can be found here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024.

7.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, David Harmon, Parish/Town Council representative, and Mr Jamie Pearson, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

8.     Mr Harmon addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

9.     Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

10.Mr Jamie Pearson addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       There was a car park management plan, which would be part of the conditions agreed with the Highways Officer. It would be a communal car park managed by a car park management company.

·       There was a healthy mix that was split between private accommodation and affordable housing. Some of the town houses would be for social rent, there was one and two bedroom accommodation split between private and social rent, as well as some of the intermediates. The affordable housing would be spread out throughout the site, instead of being put in one part of the development.

Ward Member Representation

12.Councillor Louise Sturgess addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

13.Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Mr Brown highlighted that Paragraph 6.75 identified a number of public open spaces that were available in close proximity to the site for future residents.

·       Mr Brown noted that the site was extremely constrained, and in order to ensure efficient use of the brownfield site and delivery of much needed housing, officers had considered (as allowed by Policy RL2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan saved policies in terms of open space) this was appropriate to be mitigated by a contribution to meet the public open space requirements of the development. Officers were waiting for confirmation from the Council’s countryside and public open space team as to the exact amount which would be used to provide either improved facilities or additional new public open space.

·       Mr Brown noted that officers considered that the planning obligation provided sufficient financial contribution to provide green infrastructure. There was also additional green infrastructure through landscaping on the site boundary along the edge of the railway.

·       Mr Brown highlighted that Paragraph 6.10 set out the identified housing mix of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment that the Council had produced. When the mix was compared to the more recent evidence in paragraph 6.15, it comprised significantly more one bed and affordable home ownership dwellings, and significantly more three bed and affordable homes, despite an identified need for a mix to include four plus bedroom dwellings, which the proposed development would not provide. The housing mix was not dictated by a housing market assessment, it also took into account the character of the area, and how accessible the site was to a variety of amenities and transport links. When all developments through the district were taken into account, the Council aimed to achieve the percentages set out in the market assessment.

·       Mr Goddard stated that the proposed crossing to the east of the access and the Co-operative store would only be aided by a set of dropped kerbs and tactile paving and would not be a signal crossing or a zebra crossing. There were a number of reasons for that, including the Department of Transport’s criteria on whether such crossings were required, and it was doubtful that the criteria would be met in this case. If a zebra crossing was installed, there would need to be zigzag lines, which would result in the loss of a section of on street parking, which would require a traffic regulation order, and a separate consultation with the community. Mr Goddard noted that the community may not be positive considering the current demand for car parking in the area.

·       Mr Goddard stated that disabled car parking should be up to 4% of all spaces, four car parking spaces would satisfy that requirement.

·       Mr Goddard stated that there would be large communal bins, rather than 79 individual bins. There would be a number of different points where the refuse vehicles would stop.

·       Mr Goddard stated that the bins would be stored inside the buildings.

Debate

15.Councillor Vickers opened the debate by noting that the 20mph zone addressed the issue that there were no pedestrian crossings because of the relatively low traffic speed. Councillor Vickers noted that the junction was quite busy but suggested that what was provided in the application would be sufficient. Regarding the public open spaces, Councillor Vickers highlighted the nearby canal as a possible additional public space and noted that Victoria Park and Northcroft Park                   were the areas that would most need contributions to improve their facilities for the residents of the site. Councillor Vickers noted the presence of swifts and suggested the inclusion of swift boxes.

16.Councillor Abbs noted the amenities available to residents and highlighted that CS 18 was clear that where possible green space should be made available on site. Councillor Abbs noted that the site was underdelivering in respect of green space by less than half of what was required. Councillor Abbs suggested that 69 houses and a public green space would have solved that issue along with other parking issues.

17.Councillor Woollaston supported the development and noted that it met the affordable housing requirements, creating housing which was desperately needed.

18.The Chairman referred to the list of conditions raised by Councillor Sturgess and asked Ms Debra Inston to address each of the points individually so that Members could consider them for inclusion. Ms Inston reported that Councillor Sturgess’ points had been received in advance of the meeting and a number of conditions had been amended and added in response to these points. Ms Inston drew the Committee’s attention to the update report where the amended and additional conditions were set out. Changes included:

·       Details of windows and doors, and window reveals, had been removed from the building materials conditions and was a standalone condition that required external joinery windows and doors including reveals.

·       In relation to Councillor Sturgess’ request to have building materials that were handmade bricks and stone, this had not been recommended as officers did not consider this to be reasonable.

·       Regarding Councillor Sturgess’ request to change condition 11 to ‘prior to commencement of development’ rather than ‘prior to commencement of occupation’. Officers noted that there would be no impact on the water network until the buildings were occupied, so it would be unnecessary to have as a pre-commencement condition, as pre-occupation would be sufficient.

19.Members were satisfied that the points raised by Councillor Sturgess had been correctly addressed by officers and were happy for the amended and additional conditions as set out in the update report to be included if the application was approved.

20.Councillor Abbs proposed to accept officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston.

21.Councillor Vickers requested that the condition regarding bird boxes be amended as swift boxes were very particular in their design. Ms Inston referred to condition 34 of the update report on biodiversity measures and confirmed that this could be updated to state ‘bird boxes including swift boxes’. Councillor Abbs confirmed he was happy to accept this amendment as part of his proposal.

22.The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Abbs, seconded by Councillor Woollaston, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report, update report and amendment to condition 34 as set out above.