®Planning appeal decision
Kennet Centre, Newbury, RG14 5EN
the redevelopment of the Kennet Centre comprising the partial demolition of the existing building on site and the development of new residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and residents’ ancillary facilities; commercial, business and service floorspace including office (Class E (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g)); access, parking, and cycle parking; landscaping and open space; sustainable energy installations; associated works, and alterations to the retained Vue Cinema and multi storey car park
- Authority
- West Berkshire District Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Aston R
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Newbury Town Conservation Area (NTCA) (including consideration of character and appearance, scale, height, massing, density and townscape effects) and the effect of the proposal on the setting of listed buildings
- The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to noise and the provision of acceptable private amenity space
- If conflict with the development plan, when taken as a whole is identified, whether such conflict is outweighed by other material considerations
What decided it
The less than substantial heritage harm to the Newbury Town Conservation Area and the settings of numerous listed buildings was found to be prevailing and not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.
The less than substantial harm to the NTCA and listed buildings (in the middle of the scale) attracted considerable importance and weight and, even set against very significant weight for housing/town centre benefits and moderate/modest weight for economic, climate, biodiversity and other benefits, was found to prevail, so the harm was not outweighed by the public benefits and the development plan conflict was not outweighed by other material considerations.
Framework references: 11, 125, 135, 137
Plan policies cited: Policy SP9, Policy DM9, Policy DM10, Policy DM5, Policy DM30, Policy SP5
Judgments cited: Mead Realisations Ltd v SSLUHC [2024]; East Quayside 12 LLP v The Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne [2-23] EWCA Civ 359
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.