Issue - meetings

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she was a member of Chieveley Parish Council and had been present when the matter was discussed. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03553/FULD in respect of a proposal for the erection of a three bedroom rural workers dwelling associated with Curridge Green Riding School at land east of Curridge Green Riding School.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Lesley Dick, supporter, and Mrs Sara Dutfield, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers clearly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.    Mrs Dick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She was speaking as one of 39 supporters of the application and had lived in Curridge for 30 years.

·         The applicant, Mrs Dempsted, had agreed to take over the management of the stables.

·         The Riding School was valued by the community and helped to foster a love of the countryside in children.

·         The Council should nurture rural businesses.

·         The situation was a special case.

5.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked what the Riding School’s customer base was. Mrs Dick advised that she could not give a figure but it was busy particularly in evenings and weekends.

6.    Mrs Dutfield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The landowner sought to retire and handover management of the business to Mrs Dempster due to his age and deteriorating health.

·         The view of Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) was that Mrs Dempster could continue to move into the applicant’s property while the landowner was on holiday. This was unreasonable and impractical. The current owner could not provide 24 hour cover to the yard.

·         The business required investment and the sale of land to the applicant for the proposed dwelling would support capital to be raised and reinvested in the yard.

·         It was intended to sell the entire business to Mrs Dempster in the future.

·         The size of the proposed dwelling had been criticised in the committee report but had been designed to meet Mrs Dempster’s needs.

7.    Councillor Beck asked how long the house would take to build. Mrs Dutfield advised that it would be six months.

8.    Councillor Pick asked how many people were required to be on site overnight. Mrs Dutfield advised that one person was needed overnight and there were usually more during the day.

9.    Councillor Simpson asked why the sale of land for the dwelling was not connected to the business. Mrs Dutfield advised that the current landowner and Mrs Dempster had reached their own arrangement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5