Town council objects to new flats plan at former NWN site

Councillors express concern over potential for pollution from A339

Town councillors have objected to revised plans to redevelop the site of the former Newbury Weekly News offices in Faraday Road.

Last May, Newbury News Ltd submitted an application to demolish Newspaper House and replace it with 82 flats and associated office space.

However, planning officers considered that there was not enough employment floor space.

At that time, the previous Conservative administration running the town council had no objections to the plan.

Addressing Newbury town councillors at a meeting on Monday, Kirstin Sullivan from planning consultant Pro Vision, working on behalf of new company Newspaper House Holdings Ltd said: “The applicant considered the comments in detail and significant amount of work was undertaken to review the scheme to address the comments.”

Newspaper House Holdings Ltd is owned by the former shareholders of Newbury News Ltd. It was demerged as part of the sale process earlier this year and is no longer associated with the NWN.

The revised scheme includes 3,720 metres of B1 office floor space – more than double that previously proposed.

It also includes 201 parking spaces, 164 cycling spaces and seven motorcycle spaces.

The original plans were withdrawn after officers said they wanted to see more commercial space included.

The amended plans see the number of flats reduced from 82 to 71. As per council guidelines, 21 of those homes will be affordable.

Nigel Foot (Lib Dem, West Fields) asked: “Flats are going to be affordable. Can you give us a bit more clarity over what is considered to be affordable?

Ms Sullivan replied: “Of the 71 flats there would be 21 affordable, which is the council’s requirement for a brownfield site, that you provide 30 per cent affordable.

“And what I mean by affordable, the policy requires that 70 per cent are social rented and then the other 30 per cent is what they call intermediate housing, which could be part-buy part-rent and those sort of schemes.

“So it is affordable by the council’s definitions of what affordable housing should be.”

Roger Hunneman (Lib Dem, Wash Common) said: “These flats are slightly lower than before and also adjacent to the A339 and the prevailing wind comes from the west.

“It seems rather strange you have not told us anything you are going to do to safeguard your residents against the emissions from the road, which is known to be a problem.

“Mechanical ventilation systems would help mitigate emissions coming off road. People would have the option of opening them but could still have fresh air coming in if they were closed.”

Outlining his objection, Mr Hunneman said: “I don’t like to be opposed to further housing development, but in this particular case, I don’t think it is really an appropriate place for flats.

“I think it is an ill-considered scheme, so I would not support this.”

Phil Barnett (Lib Dem, Clay Hill) said he had “grave concerns” about the close proximity of the flats to the A339.

He added: “Very little thought has been given to the effect for those residents. The only good, positive on this development is the actual position in relationship to the town.

“That’s probably the only upside, but overall, on balance I’m afraid I am against it.”

Steve Masters (Green, Speenhamland) said: “I just want to echo the concerns raised by other councillors. It needs more mitigation against the pollution risk.”

Of the 10 councillors in attendance, seven objected to the plans on the grounds of noise and pollution.

Jeff Beck and Vaughan Miller abstained, while chairman Tony Vickers voted against the proposal to object.