Agenda item

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/02269/LBC2 in respect an application for Listed Building Consent at 15 Bridge Street, Hungerford, RG17 0EG.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Team Leader – Development Control, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant Listed Building Consent, subject to the conditions outlined in the main report.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard did not have any observations.

Ward Member Representation

4.     Councillor Claire Rowles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application was for retrospective consent, which should not be how planning matters were dealt with by West Berkshire Council.

·         Councillor Rowles noted that she had advised Hungerford Town Council that she would speak on their behalf, and that they were watching the application with interest.

·         Two planning applications had been refused on the site, in 1985 and 2022, seeking to create another separate flat. The applicant then sought a Certificate of Lawfulness for using part of the first floor as a flat. The applicant appeared to have ignored the need to seek planning permission, which was required, instead seeking to remedy the use of the first floor through retrospective consent. If the Committee approved the Officer’s recommendations it would be encouraging to other residents to ignore the planning process.

·         The application before the Committee was to approve the filling in of the entrance to the wing of the flat, and to install a door. It was clear at the site visit that to properly consider the Listed Building Consent application the Committee would have to consider all aspects of planning, including the Certificate of Lawfulness. No Listed Building Consent had been sought for the stairs or other internal changes.

·         It was unclear why Planning Officers had approved the Certificate of Lawfulness the day before the Committee meeting, when the application was linked to the application before the Committee.

·         Councillor Rowles concluded that there was a clear, calculated effort by the applicant to ultimately achieve planning permission in stages.

5.     Councillor James Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Cole noted that Hungerford Town Council had accepted that there was evidence that the door previously existed, and as a result, it could not be contested. However, the justification for the application was that Council Tax had been paid on the previously unapproved flat.

·         Councillor Cole noted that the Ward Members’ aim was for the Committee to defer the application until all of the applications relating to the site could be considered. However, the actions of the Planning Officers in issuing the Certificate of Lawfulness had forced the Committee’s hand.

·         As Heritage Champion, Councillor Cole questioned the point of Listed Building Consent if applicants were encouraged to ignore it. Councillor Cole additionally questioned how the Council could collect Council tax on a property it was unaware of and did not approve.

·         Councillor Cole noted that he was not criticising the Planning Officers, and noted that it was a mix of management and policy issues which had caused the issues.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

6.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked if the Ward Members had seen evidence which proved the previous existence of the door. Councillor Cole responded that he had only seen the plans, which contained a cut-out from 1985 which showed that a door was previously situated there. Councillor Rowles noted that she had raised the same concern. Councillor Cole responded that he had looked through the paperwork in consultation with Hungerford Town Council. Councillor Abbs responded that he had not seen the plans in the pack, and asked for confirmation that there was evidence. Councillor Cole confirmed that he had seen the evidence.

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the impact of internal alterations within the listed building was not present in the pack. Councillor Cole responded that the Committee was not permitted to talk about it as it was not relevant. Councillor Vickers asked whether the main concern of the Ward Members was that there had been an irregular process. Councillor Cole responded that the Town Council was unhappy with the process, and they were concerned with regard to the Certificate of Lawfulness along with the insistence that the Committee consider the application alone. Councillor Cole reiterated that the issue would not be raised if Hungerford Town Council had been properly consulted.

8.     The Chairman observed that at the meeting of the Hungerford Town Council and at the site meeting the agent stated that a Certificate of Lawfulness had been issued, and so it had not been slipped in.

9.     Councillor Jeff Cant asked whether the Ward Members’ main objection was the retrospective manner of the application. Councillor Rowles confirmed that it was, but stated that was one element. Councillor Cole stated that there were other issues with the flat, but they were not relevant to the current application. Councillor Rowles added that there were a number of listed buildings in Hungerford which would be at risk if retrospective planning applications became the norm.

10.  Councillor Abbs asked whether the main concern was the precedent the retrospective planning application could set. Councillor Cole responded that he would much rather there be proper consultation with Hungerford Town Council. Councillor Rowles confirmed that it was, and that it was particularly pertinent to Hungerford.

Member Questions to Officers

11.  Councillor Abbs asked why the Committee had not been shown the evidence that the door had existed in 1985. Mr Simon Till responded that the evidence came from the Council’s own planning records, rather than the applicant. Mr Till noted that the Conservation Officer had assessed the application and the planning records and raised no objection. Councillor Abbs stated that it would have been better for the Committee to have been shown the evidence directly. Mr Till described the record from 1985 and stated that it was his error.

12.  Councillor Vickers asked why the Planning Officers could not ask the applicants to make a more comprehensive application. Mr Till responded that the local planning authority was required to consider an application as put in front of it, and the format was the choice of the applicant. The local planning authority could not delay an application on the basis that other applications might be forthcoming. The Chairman added that the local planning authority additionally could not advise an applicant on the format by which they should submit it.

13.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked what the implications would be if the Committee refused the application, as it was retrospective. Mr Till responded that an appeal would be the most likely implication. Mr Till additionally noted that the local authority could not take punitive action on an application for the manner it had been submitted.

14.  Councillor Abbs asked for confirmation that the renovations set out in the refused application had not been done by the applicant regardless. Mr Till responded that the works within the Certificate of Lawfulness application were works that were done around 2005 in order to carry out conversion works, with evidence of letting provided. Mr Till could not comment on any other works as he did not have further detail, and it was not relevant to the current applicant. Councillor Abbs pointed out that there was evidence of further works in the pack.

15.  The Chairman asked whether the fact that the Council was collecting Council Tax on a property it did not permit was an issue. Mr Till responded that the local planning authority and the Council Tax administrator were separate and there was a separate statutory regime that made cross-informing difficult. Councillor Abbs noted that he would have liked to have seen evidence of when Council Tax had begun to be paid.

Debate

16.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth opened the debate by noting that he had called in the application to defend the interests of Hungerford Town Council, and noted that he took the heritage of Hungerford very seriously. Councillor Benneyworth stated that Councillor Cole was correct that the Committee could not defer the application, and therefore there was nothing they could do other than discuss it. Councillor Benneyworth noted that the information Hungerford Town Council had received was slim and the Design and Access Statement was extremely brief. However, Councillor Benneyworth did not feel that he had a choice but to accept Officers’ recommendation.

17.  Councillor Abbs stated that he would be voting to reject Officer’s recommendation as there was no evidence presented to the Committee to prove the pre-existence of a door. Councillor Abbs believed that it would set a precedent for further works with retrospective permission. The Chairman stated that Councillor Abbs’ statement was supposition.

18.  Councillor Jeff Cant stated that the door looked fine and the officers had raised no issues with the application. Councillor Cant accepted that the manner in which the application had been made was irritating, but that was no grounds to refuse planning permission. Councillor Cant stated that he would propose to accept the Officer’s recommendation.

19.  Councillor Beck stated that he would be seconding.

20.  Councillor Vickers stated that he saw no harm in what he saw on the site visit, and accepted the Conservation Officer’s findings. Councillor Vickers stated that the only damage was to the due process of the Council, and that he was unhappy that it had come forward as an incomplete Listed Building Consent application, but would be voting in favour of Officer’s recommendation.

21.  Councillor Howard Woollaston asked whether it was possible to note the Council’s disapproval with the manner in which the application had been submitted. The Chairman responded that the Council could not, but the issues had been minuted and officers had heard the issues raised.

22.  Councillor Jeff Cant proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant Listed Building Consent subject to the conditions listed in the main report. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck.

23.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cant, seconded by Councillor Beck to grant Listed Building Consent. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant Listed Building Consent subject to the following conditions:

Condition