Family homes in Russell Road, Newbury, rejected despite support

A grandson’s bid to realise his grandfather’s dream of creating more family homes in the centre of Newbury has failed.

Stuart Bartlett wanted to demolish his grandfather’s bungalow and build four three-bedroom houses on the plot in Russell Road.

But the move was refused at last night’s (Wednesday) western area planning committee – despite considerable local support.

The bid to develop the site was rejected as not enough parking and garden space was allocated – resulting in over-development.

More than a dozen objections to the scheme were raised by local residents – some concerned with the additional traffic impact on Dyson Close.

But the application was also backed by a number of other residents who considered the site is a good use for housing development, bringing much-needed family homes to the centre of Newbury.

Council officers told councillors that the gardens of the planned four houses were not big enough.

Also that the homes did not have enough parking allocated.

The applicant, Stuart Bartlett, said the bungalow had belonged to his grandfather who wanted the site used to bring something to the community.

“I am aware the planning policy requires car parking to be rounded up to three spaces per plot," he said. "Two spaces is sufficient as it is within walking distance to the town centre, and 200 metres to a car club vehicle.”

He was questioned as to why he didn’t go for three rather than four homes, which would have dealt with the parking issues.

He said Newbury needed more family homes in the centre of town.

“If you can walk into a town centre, we should be encouraging fewer cars and this should be an exception to planning policy,” he added.

Justifying the small gardens he said: “I used to walk to the park to play as a child. The park is five minutes away.”

Officers told the committee that the proposed development site would be ‘cramped’ and leading to more road parking, and that it amounted to over development of the area.

Sukey Russell-Haward spoke up to support the application.

She said neighbours were in support of the proposal as it provided much-needed family accommodation.

“The gardens are of similar size to other gardens in the street,” she said.

“A move towards working from home has led to a fewer number of cars on the road. We even have residents here who share cars for neighbours.”

She said the supporters rejected the council officers’ claims that 2.5 car spaces were needed per each three-bedroom house.

Martha Vickers, (Lib Dem, Newbury Central) the ward member, said: “We need more family homes in the centre. If this is refused, we could see more flats here, with a lower requirement for parking.”

But officers refuted the idea that an exception to planning policy should be made.

“Parking is so much a problem in this area that this is not an exceptional circumstance.” said highways director Paul Goddard.

“This is not a historical building in the centre of town – it is a new build. If we don’t object to a shortfall in parking here, where there is a problem with parking, then where do we object?”

The planners said there was not sufficient planning benefit to support an exception to the rule.

“There is a case for making an exception in West Fields,” said Tony Vickers (Lib Dem, Wash Common). "There is a flaw in the methodology that we don’t consider cycling in our planning."

Jeff Cant (Con, Newbury Clay Hill) said: “We are here to consider exceptions. And to apply common sense and context so I shall support approving the application.”

He was the only councillor to reject officers' recommendations to reject the application.