Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 15 March 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2017 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Page 9, Section 23, third line, the word ‘not’ to be changed to ‘no’.

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 Paul Hewer and Dennis Benneyworth 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 Clive Hooker declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Dennis Benneyworth declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Hungerford Town Council. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest and the item was an outline application, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.  He was also a resident of Kennedy Meadow, which abutted the application site).

(Councillor Paul Hewer declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was employed by Sovereign Housing. 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 Clive Hooker declared that all Members had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1)).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 16/03061/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for approximately 100 dwellings, public open space and landscaping.  The matters to be considered were access only.

2.       Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  The Officer recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission subject to the first completion of a Section 106 planning obligation.

3.       Michael Butler emphasised that the only matter under consideration at the meeting was access and the reserved matters application would deal with the appearance, scale and layout of the development.

4.       Highways Officers had advised that although there would be some impact on traffic in Hungerford Town Centre, the impact would not be so severe as to justify a recommendation for refusal.

5.       Michael Butler advised that the Committee would need to consider the planning balance having regard to the relative visual and landscape harm that would result from the scheme.  The extent of the harm, having regard to the landscape mitigation to be put in place, was the important test.

6.       Members were referred to the Update Report and in particular the response from the Planning Policy Team who had concluded that since the Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (HSA DPD) was at a very advanced state, significant weight should be given to the policy allocation and therefore the application was not premature. Michael Butler also asked Members to note that the North Wessex Downs Area of Natural Beauty (AONB) had formally requested the National Planning Casework Unit to call in the proposal should Members approve it.

7.       Michael Butler concluded by advising that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application, the Development Control Manager, under his delegated authority would automatically refer the application to the District Planning Committee for decision.

8.       Bryan Lyttle provided the following information to the Committee:

The HSA DPD had been examined and the Inspector had already published his Preliminary Findings on the Main Modifications to the DPD including what final report would be considered at Council on the 9 May 2017, with the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.(1)

The meeting recommenced at 8.20pm.

(Councillor Clive Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied on the matter. 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.  However he would vacate the Chair for the item and Councillor Paul Bryant would take his place.)

(Councillor Paul Bryant in the Chair)

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/00190/ADV in respect of five directional fascia board signs for the Ibex Inn, Chaddleworth.

2.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Grahame Murphy, applicant/agent and Councillor Clive Hooker, Ward Member, 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 and the Officer recommendation was to refuse advertisement consent.  The item had been called in by Councillor Hooker as he was of the opinion that refusal would not support trade for the public house or the village. 

4.       Derek Carnegie emphasised that there was a balance between supporting local businesses and protecting the Area of Natural Beauty (AONB).  He was concerned that approval of the application would set a precedent as it would lead to a cumulative impact on the AONB.  The planning authority had a great deal of sympathy with public houses in the rural area but it had a duty to protect the AONB.  He added that an application to place brown signs adjacent to highways signage would be viewed more positively.  Therefore, as the application currently stood, there was a strong recommendation to the Committee to refuse the application.

5.       Grahame Murphy in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     The objection came about as the Planning Officer had misplaced the proposed location of one of the signs.

·     This Committee had been kind enough to grant planning permission to the Ibex and enabled the adjacent houses to be sold in order to fund the redevelopment of the public house.

·     As a result, a considerable amount of money had been spent on the redevelopment of the Ibex.

·     They had spoken to all the residents in the village and held two meetings, each of which had been attended by over 70 people and everyone was in support of the application.

·     The Ibex was not able to draw on passing trade due to its location and it was difficult to find, which was why they required the five signs to help patrons to find it. 

·     He asked the Committee to approve the application as so many rural public houses were closing.  The Ibex had only reopened in December 2016 and could not rely on the trade of the 400 people resident in the village so it was vital to attract passing trade.

6.       Councillor Hilary Cole asked Mr Murphy why they had been resistant to the erection of the brown signs.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

(Councillor Clive Hooker resumed the position of Chairman).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/00315/FULD in respect of Section 73 Variation of Condition 2: Approved Plans in accordance of approved reference 15/03473/FULD (Demolition of existing dwelling and associated outbuildings and replacement with a new dwelling and garden shed.

2.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, M Munro, Parish Council representative, Bob Thorley, objector, Howard Waters, applicant/agent and Councillor Garth Simpson, Ward Member 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.  The item had been brought before the Committee as more than ten objections had been received to the application. 

4.       The application sought the variation of Condition 2 of the earlier planning permission, which included a revised scheme to provide basement storage underneath the new dwelling.  This would reduce the requirement for the proposed piling and there would be less spoil to remove from the site.  The Officers’ recommendation was to approve the planning permission as it was considered very acceptable.

5.       M Munro in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     The Parish Council had objected to the original design due to over massing.  However the applicant had agreed to amend the plans and they found the new application to be acceptable.

·     The ramp underneath the building was an improvement on the previous plan although they were aware that there were still some objections to the development.

·     The main objection related to noise from the ramp but the Parish Council felt that as the underground storage would be used for a collection of vintage cars, it would not be in continual use.

·     Therefore, after consideration, they felt the concerns had been addressed and they had no further objections.

6.       Bob Thorley in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     He had lived at Pine Lodge for 33 years, which was adjacent to Woodridge and it was in an AONB.

·     He had strongly supported the earlier planning application.

·     All the changes in this application would have a direct impact on Woodridge, as the ramp and the 6-7 door garage would be located immediately adjacent to his property.

·     There might be benefits from the new application during construction, but there would be a permanent impact on Pine Lodge and he was concerned about the step ramp, which was parallel and adjacent to his boundary.

·     There would be noise and disturbance caused by access to the ramp and the right turn into the garage.

·     Headlights from the vehicles accessing the garage would spill over the top into the front of Woodridge and the master bedroom.

·     A beautiful 50 year old, 30 feet golden yew tree that screened the two houses was threatened and was not included on the plans.  The tree was within the curtilage of Woodridge and its roots would be damaged during the construction of the ramp.

·     He asked the Committee to agree that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.