Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24-00582-FUL The White Hart inn, Hampstead Marshall in respect of change of use of the Public House to residential use, together with external alterations, landscaping, car parking and any other associated works and infrastructure, White Hart Inn, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, RG20 0HW.

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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      Highways Officers had no further comments.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Anne Budd, Parish Council representative, Mr Matt Maggs, objector, Mr Chris Moss, supporter, and Ms Stella Coulthurst/Mr Gareth Johns, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.      Ms Budd addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 23 October 2024

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

6.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The first Asset of Community Value (ACV) nomination had been accepted. When the time was running out on the ACV, another Parish Councillor had submitted an nomination, however it was rejected on the grounds that there was no justification that an ACV would be appropriate.

·       Ms Budd stated that to her knowledge, no brewing had taken place on the site.

Objector Representation

7.      Mr Maggs addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 23 October 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

8.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Mr Maggs was concerned about being able to see through the obscured windows and the impact this might have on the value of his property. He noted that the previous application from 2017 did not have a skylight.

Supporter Representation

9.      Mr Moss addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 23 October 2024

Member Questions to the Supporter

10.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

11.   Ms Coulthurst and Mr Jones addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee 23 October 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

12.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       It was confirmed that there had been no interest in running the property as a pub while it had been on the market for six months.

·       It was acknowledged that some potential buyers thought they could see an inexpensive development opportunity and were interested in that capacity. Two restaurant groups had considered the property, but they did not want to pursue it because of the location challenges.

·       It was confirmed that although a brewery had been installed, no beer had been brewed at the pub since the month before the pub closed.

Member Questions to Officers

13.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Officers stated sufficient parking could be provided for the residential development. Overall, there was a need for 8.5 spaces, and nine were proposed. The proposal complied with Policy P1 and car parking standards.

·       It was confirmed that permitted development rights would be limited. No condition was proposed restricting extensions and alterations to the buildings, other than to restrict the rights for any additional window openings along the north elevation of H4. The proposed skylight would be 1.7 metres above the internal floor level. As such, even with an opening window, there would be no overlooking impact. The room had originally been proposed as a bedroom, so building regulations would have required an opening window. However, internal alterations could be made to have the room as a bathroom, so only mechanical ventilation would be required, and the offer had been made for a condition requiring it be a shut window. 

·       Officers stated there would be five skylights on the front of elevation H4.

·       It was confirmed that the proposed development was in keeping with parking standards, with one visitor space per five units.

Debate

14.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj opened the debate by proposing to approve the development. He highlighted the lack of support for pubs in the community which meant that the business was not viable, and highlighted the lack of technical reasons for refusal.

15.   Councillor Clive Hooker agreed with Councillor Amirtharaj.  He recalled when the Committee had previously considered an application for the site, and the reasons for refusal at that meeting had been the same as those subsequently given by the Planning Inspector at appeal. Many local residents had turned up to the meeting to make the case for saving the pub, however that support had not been enough.

16.   Councillor Billy Drummond indicated that he supported the application.

17.   Councillor Adrian Abbs supported the inclusion of a condition to heavily obscure the view from the skylight. However, officers indicated that this would be unreasonable, since obscured glazing should prevent visibility. Officers were not aware of any technical standards that could be imposed.

18.   Councillor Howard Woollaston supported a condition to required obscure glazing to prevent any overlooking of the adjoining property. Officers confirmed they would ensure that the condition was such that the obscure glazing was sufficient to prevent any overlooking of any neighbouring properties.

19.   Councillor Amirtharaj proposed to accept Officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Hooker.

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

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update reports subject to the following amendments:

Conditions

18. Obscure glazing of windows

The roof light window at first floor level in the north elevation of dwelling H4 shall be fitted with level 4 or 5obscure glass and shall be non-opening. The obscure glazing shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjacent properties/land, in the interests of safeguarding the privacy of the neighbouring occupants. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (2006) and House Extensions SPG (July 2004).