Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 11 July 2018.

In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, who had tendered their apologies for the meeting, Sharon Armour opened the meeting and sought nominations for Chairman for this meeting. Councillor Paul Bryant was duly elected Chairman for this meeting of the District Planning Committee.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Item 5 (1) – 18/00837/FULEXT – Land at Station Yard, Hungerford

Applicant representation, sixth bullet point:

Neither Network Rail or Great Western Railway had never sought to purchase the land in question;

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Richard Crumly, Marigold Jaques, Tim Metcalfe and Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as their interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Anthony Pick reported that while he was unable to attend the site visit, he did visit the site independently.

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he knew the Plank family from his work as a farmer. He also knew one of the supporters, Dr Yann Le Du, very well for the same reason. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he knew many of the members of the public who would be addressing the Committee. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillors Richard Crumly, Marigold Jaques, Tim Metcalfe and Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they had considered the application at the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 27 February 2019. However, they were in attendance at this meeting with an open mind and would consider the matter afresh. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Anthony Pick reported that while he was unable to attend the site visit, he did visit the site independently.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01470/FULD in respect of the retention of an existing timber lodge as farm worker accommodation as supported by new and additional evidence from the applicant. This would constitute non-compliance with condition 12 of approved 13/03014/FUL.

David Pearson (Development Control Team Leader) introduced the report. He explained that on 27 February 2019 the Eastern Area Planning Committee considered and approved this full planning application for the retention of the existing timber lodge (previously allowed as temporary accommodation) as farm worker accommodation.

The resolution of the Eastern Area Planning Committee was contained within the committee report as well as its reasoning for the decision. The Eastern Area Planning Committee concluded that the lodge accommodation could be restricted to the shepherdess/shepherd and the application could therefore be approved as an exceptional case for the district and would not set a precedent.

Members resolved that the application could be approved in accordance with Policy C5 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) (housing related to rural workers) and subject to the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement. Members sited that Paragraph 4.39 of Policy C5 stated that ‘there may be cases where the nature and demands of the worker’s role require them to live at or very close to the work place’ and this was felt to provide the necessary justification to grant planning permission for the lodge for the stockperson. Members considered that the S106 legal agreement was the most effective way to ensure that occupation of the lodge was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(1)