Recommendation: Conditional Approval, subject to variation of the description and to completion of a Legal Agreement.

Proposal:Hybrid Planning Application, including:

Part 1 - Application for OUTLINE PERMISSION (reserving matters of (a) access; (b) appearance; (c) landscaping; (d) layout; and (e) scale) FOR: Demolition of all existing buildings on site; up to 1,500 new dwellings (Use Class C3); up to 12,000 sqm of employment floorspace (Use Class B2); a Neighbourhood Centre with up to 1,900sqm of non-residential floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 and D1); a new primary school; new sports pitches and associated pavilion building; highways infrastructure including an extension to the Nine Mile Ride and a new link from the Nine Mile Ride Extension to the Hogwood Lane Industrial Estate; associated landscaping, public realm and open/green space (including children’s play areas); and sustainable urban drainage systems.

PART 2 – Application for FULL PERMISSION FOR: 29.70 ha of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).

This is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application for the purposes of the EIA Regulations 2011.

Applicant:Marino Family

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 11 to 120.

The Committee was advised that the Members’ Update included:

·       an update on Recommendation A, including a recommended amendment to condition 9;

·       a recommended amendment to condition 24;

·       a further written representation from Eversley Parish Council.

It was noted that Members visited the site on 28 September 2015.

Suzanne Sach and Rachel Stockton spoke in objection to the application.

Nicola Greenwood asked the Committee to consider adding conditions in relation to road safety and Greenways.

Roger Marshallsay spoke to the application on behalf of Finchampstead Parish Council.

Ian Pittock, a Local Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application but urged that electricity pylons on the site be removed with the cables buried instead.

Members asked about the provision of public transport and primary school places, road safety and traffic issues and the possibility of the developer replacing pylons with buried cables.

It was clarified that it will be up to the Council to deal with many of the transport and school issues through the use of S106 and CIL funds.

RESOLVED: That

·       application O/2014/2179 be approved, subject to the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement by 30 November 2015 and conditions set out on Agenda pages 59 to 87 with conditions 9 and 24 amended as set out in the Members’ Update and an additional informative to advise future developers to set up a liaison group for the SDL in co-operation with Crest;

·       in the event that the applicant fails to complete the legal agreement by 30/11/2015, and it is in the opinion of the Head of Development Management and Regulatory Services not prudent to continue negotiations, that the Head of Development Management and Regulatory Services be authorised to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION on the basis that 1) the applicant has failed to sign the S106 legal agreement and thus failed to ensure delivery of the obligations deemed necessary to make the application acceptable in planning terms; and 2) any other reason of refusal considered appropriate by the Head of Development Management and Regulatory Services to properly reflect the resolution of the Planning Applications Committee.