Agenda item

The Chairman left the meeting. Councillor Tony Vickers proposed that Councillor Howard Woollaston be elected as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Dick. At the vote, the Motion was carried.

(Councillor Howard Woollaston in the Chair.)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 3(4)) concerning Planning Application 23/002591/HOUSE and 23/02592/LBC in respect of a two storey rear extension, new bathroom in existing roof space and replacement roof coverings at Little Hidden Farm, Wantage Road, Newtown, Hungerford.

2.      Ms Sian Cutts 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole and Mr Jerry Keates, town council representatives, and Mr James Acworth and Ms Marianne Smith, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.      Mr Cole and Mr Keates addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 16th July 2024 (youtube.com)

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.      Mr Acworth and Ms Smith addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 16th July 2024 (youtube.com)

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

7.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

8.      Councillor Tony Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 16th July 2024 (youtube.com)

Member Questions to the Ward Member

9.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

10.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Debate

11.   Councillor Nigel Foot opened the debate. He understood why Officers had recommended refusal in order to protect the building. However, the Town Council and Ward Member representations had set out the benefits of the proposal in terms of keeping the family together and reducing social care costs, as well as the benefits for the local community. He hoped the farm could remain in the ownership of the Acland family. He noted that there had previous been some unattractive additions to the farmhouse, but the proposed development would not detract from its appearance. He proposed to reject the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission and listed building consent.

12.   Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj felt it would be an irony that if the Officer’s recommendation was accepted then the building may fall into disrepair and be lost. The representations had highlighted the importance of considering the needs of the owner’s family. He considered the conservation aspects to be less important. Also, he did not see that the proposal would be detrimental to the heritage asset. He seconded Councillor Foot’s proposal.

13.   Councillor Paul Dick sympathised with the applicant’s family circumstances, but asked how much weight should be given to this when making a planning decision, since the benefits were mostly for the applicant’s family rather than the wider public. Officers had indicated that the house could have an extension, but had suggested that this was not the right solution.

14.   Officers confirmed that the proposal largely offered private benefits in allowing the family to stay together, but if Members wished to do so, they could give weight to the economic benefits of sustaining a rural enterprise.

15.   Councillor Tony Vickers suggested that the building would not fall into disrepair, since it would be likely to find new owners who would care for it. However, he doubted whether new owners would care for the rest of the site in the same way. He felt that the business was at risk if the current owners could not remain in the property. This was where the public benefits lay, and he felt that they should be given substantial weight. The applicant had confirmed that the business was only viable if they could continue to live in their property. He suggested that there were significant public benefits that were in accordance with the Council’s policies.

16.   It was suggested that if Members voted to go against Officer’s recommendation, then conditions associated with the planning permission and listed building consent should be delegated to Officers.

17.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Nigel Foot, seconded by Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj to grant planning permission subject to conditions to be agreed by Officers. At the vote the motion was carried.

18.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Nigel Foot, seconded by Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj to grant listed building consent subject to conditions to be agreed by Officers. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to the conditions to be agreed by Officer.