Agenda item

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that the site was situated within their ward. 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.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/02695/MDOPO2 in respect of Land South of Priory Road, Hungerford.

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 of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant approval of the deed of variation.

3.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council representative, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.       Mr James Cole, Hungerford Town Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Mr Cole noted that Hungerford Town Council thanked the Development Control Manager for calling the application in, as it would allow the decision to be made publicly.

·       Mr Cole noted that the Town Council were not experienced in this type of application, but trusted that it was acceptable, and asked the Committee to be satisfied that the shared ownership houses remained shared ownership.

Member Questions to the Town Council

5.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

6.       Councillor Dennis Benneyworth in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Councillor Benneyworth stated that the application had been called in, and that the issue was mired in legal language not digestible to the general public. By calling it in, the issue could be clarified, and reassured given that the affordable housing clause was clear.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

8.       Councillor Carolyne Culver asked why the period of disposal set out in Point 1.13.2 was only six weeks long. Mr Till responded that the Council would have the opportunity to retrieve the affordable housing, either to transfer to an RP or hold it itself, within that period.

9.       Councillor Culver asked whether the First Homes policy was applicable, considering the fact that the application was approved. Mr Till responded that the First Homes policy was not applicable, as it came into effect after the legal agreement was created.

10.   Councillor Tony Vickers asked why this application had come to Committee. Mr Till responded that a number of similar cases had been through the Planning system, and had been approved, but in this case the Town Council had raised concerns.

11.   Councillor Howard Woollaston asked whether the Council was disadvantaged in any way by the proposed change. Mr Till responded that it could be argued as the Council was the last resort in case one of the legal agreements did have to be called into action, but the risk was extremely low, and the site would be potentially desirable.

Debate

12.   Councillor Vickers opened the debate by stating that he was happy that it was brought to the Committee, and that it provided clarity. Councillor Vickers stated that, on balance, the existence of the agreements were a benefit to the Council as it allowed the Council to ensure that it fulfilled its policy obligations. Councillor Vickers suggested that that be explained in some form by a press release.

13.   Councillor Clive Hooker proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Patrick Clark.

14.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hooker, seconded by Councillor Clark to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant the deed of variation.