Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 24/00925/FUL in respect of the construction of single storey restaurant building using shipping containers, renovation and fit out of existing brick storage barn to form new barn and seating area, and external landscaping to form pub garden/seating area, at Cross Keys, 8 London Road, Newbury.

2.      Ms Donna Toms 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.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. He highlighted that the proposed seating area would result in the loss of the pub’s car park, but there was sufficient parking in nearby public car parks particularly given that peak parking demand for the pub would be in the evenings, when demand for town centre car parking was low. He confirmed that Highways had no objection to the proposal

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Cheeseman and Ms Helen Spriggs, objectors addressed the Committee on this application.

Objectors Representation

5.      Ms Spriggs addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

6.      Mr Cheeseman addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

7.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

8.      Councillor Antony Amirtharaj addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the recording:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 18th December 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

9.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       A light assessment had been carried out on Ms Spriggs’ property in accordance with BRE guidance. Although this had shown there would be a 25% loss of light, this was considered adequate and there would still be ample light from above.

·       Members noted that the site was within a town centre location, so a degree of activity was to be expected. Officers had been guided by Environmental Health colleagues, who were satisfied with the proposal. Also, they had confirmed that licensing arrangements could control how the site was managed, and they were confident that they could respond to any issues that arose.

·       It was confirmed that the wood-burner flue was over 6m from the neighbouring property, and it was pointed towards the car park. It was suggested that the wood-burner would not be used in the summer months when windows were more likely to be open. The Environmental Health Team considered significant adverse impacts from the wood-burner to be unlikely, but they had powers to act if there was a problem with smoke/odours in future.

·       The structural integrity of the shipping containers would be a Building Control issue.

·       It was confirmed that the proposal would not result in any change to the barn roof. This could not be conditioned, since it was not necessary for the planning permission to be granted.

·       Members were advised that the proposal did not seek any alteration to the existing vehicular access from London Road.

·       Confirmation was provided that the surfacing in the seating area would be permeable.

·       Members noted that the Environmental Health Team had not requested any additional conditions related to ducting from the kitchen. However, they could require this if there was a problem in future.

Debate

11.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj opened the debate. He indicated that he was in favour of the proposal, which would extend the pub rather than converting it to residential use. The business was in the town centre, and he suggested that the pub was needed within the local area. He felt it was a sustainable enhancement to the current business. He stressed that traffic and parking would not be an issue, but he recognised that objectors’ concerns needed to be addressed, and he suggested that regular monitoring should be carried out. He indicated that he was happy to propose to accept the Officer’s recommendation to approve the planning application.

12.   Councillor Denise Gaines pointed out that there were other restaurants in the local area, which could also generate noise. She noted that the neighbouring business was not open every day and on working days it closed by 8pm (12pm on Saturdays), so she did not feel that it would be greatly affected. She did not have concerns about loss of light.

13.   Councillor Paul Dick noted that extensive conditions had been proposed. He also highlighted that Environmental Health had no concerns about the applications and were confident that if any problems arose, they had sufficient powers to deal with them. Overall, he felt that it was a good proposal.

14.   Councillor Howard Woollaston indicated that he was minded to second the proposal to approve the application, since he felt it would improve the street-scene. It was an existing business and the proposed expansion would provide additional employment. He suggested an additional condition to stipulate that the restaurant and pub could not be operated as two separate businesses. Officers agreed that a condition could be imposed to keep it as a single planning unit and that it could not be sub-divided.

15.   Councillor Howard Woollaston proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report and the additional condition regarding retaining a single planning unit. This was seconded by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj.

16.   The Chairman asked if conditions could be attached to the fuel used in the wood-burner in order to restrict smoke generation. Councillor Clive Hooker asked if a condition could be imposed requiring the burner to be electric. Officers indicated that the Committee should not seek to condition against the wood-burner per se. However, if Members so wished, a condition could be attached stipulating that no development shall take place until a management and monitoring plan is submitted for approval that shall include details of monitoring of noise, odours, fumes, etc. Also, a clause could be added such that if an issue was raised through monitoring, that would trigger a requirement to provide some mitigation. The additional conditions were accepted by the proposer and seconder.

17.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woolaston and, seconded by Councillor Amirtharaj to grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions. 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, the update report and the additional condition set out below.

Conditions

5.   Singularity planning unit / no subdivision

6.   Management and Monitoring Plan