Latest steps in on-going Thatcham flats saga

The latest application from Duncan Crook of Newbury developer Ressance proposes to develop 18 flats/maisonettes and two houses at 131, 133, 137, 139 and 141 Bath Road.
The development would comprise four one-bedroom flats, 14 two-bedroom flats and two three-bedroom houses.
Mr Crook says that 24 car parking spaces would be provided, along with 32 cycle spaces, and access coming from Henwick Lane.
So far, five residents have objected to the plans.
Nick Jones said the application was slightly misleading, giving the impression that only 18 flats and two houses were planned, but previously approved plans for 139 and 141 would add up to 30 flats and two houses.
Mr Jones said that the very busy junction would suffer in the long term if planning permission was granted, adding that he was concerned about overflow car parking on Henwick Lane and the Bath Road.
This view was shared by fellow resident Stephen Hallahan, who doubted that the development could support the parking requirements of 20 properties, raising concerns that cars would spill out into surrounding streets that were unsuitable for parking.
Calling the plans ‘back garden development that would open the floodgates to developing sites along the Bath Road’, resident Heather Hopkin said that the plans would constitute an over-development that would be out of keeping with existing properties.
She said that the development would increase traffic on the A4, while parking for residents and visitors only would result in unaccaptable parking levels in surrounding roads.
Thatcham Town Council raised no objections but added a caveat in regards to highways safety.
Technical consultant Chris Watts said that there had been a number of problems in the continuing saga of applications but said that the applicant appeared to have ticked most of the boxes now.
However, Mr Watts raised a technical point over a difference in the number of parking spaces, with one document saying 33 while another stated one per property, equalling 20 spaces.
The site has been the subject of several planning applications and appeals.
A scheme for 11 flats for 139-141 was granted on appeal in 2009 only for an application for 12 flats to be approved on appeal in 2012.
An application for six three-bedroom houses and 21 flats has recently been dismissed at appeal.
Planning inspector Terry Phillimore said that the proposal had important shortcomings in terms of its effects on the character and appearance of the area, living and highways conditions and drainage.
Mr Phillimore added that the development would not be sustainable and was in significant conflict with the council’s development plan and would give rise to harms that would outweigh the benefits.