Row over future of "one of Hungerford's oldest" buildings

Tempers fray as town planners debate "ugly" modern replacement

THERE were angry scenes on Monday night as Hungerford town council planners clashed over the pending demolition of an iconic building, said to be one of the oldest in the area.

Rupert Thompson was infuriated by an accusation from David Liddiard of “filibustering” - the use of obstructionist, prolonged speechmaking - during a passionate debate over the fate of picturesque, possibly medieval, Isbury Cottage in Marsh Lane.

Mr Thompson began to storm from the meeting, followed by his accuser, but both men returned to the table with an admonishment from planning committee chairwoman Jean Hutchings ringing in their ears.

Applicant Ben Blake was initially refused permission to demolish the existing, thatched cottage and replace it with a three-bedroom bungalow, retaining the existing annex.

He appealed and, last July, a planning inspector overturned the refusal and granted outline permission.

Mr Blake now seeks approval for designs for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

Roger Thomspon branded the proposed replacement building “ugly, a town design in a countryside environment,” while Martin Crane said it was “utilitarian.”

Rupert Thompson said: “The inspector's report was flawed in a number of ways. Records suggest this is actually one of the oldest houses in the Hungerford area with records going back to the 15th century. It's a distinctive, highly visible part of the scene in many photographs of Hungerford.

“An argument was put forward that this unique property is structurally unsound but no evidence was presented. Some take the view that the roof is very far from being damaged. It's an intrinsic part of the townscape and people will be amazed if this council says the proposals are fine.”

He added: “We should try to replace some of the character for the future instead of settling for the lowest possible standards. We should be proud enough of our town to ask for something better. I'm absolutely sure the strength of feeling shown at this meeting is shared in the town.”

However Mrs Hutchings remarked: “It's a shame those people haven't registered their objections.”

Mr Liddiard, who later apologised for his “filibustering” accusation, disagreed and suggested the committee was “making a mountain out of a molehill.”

The committee voted to make no recommendation on layout but to object to the design on the grounds it was “ugly, a town design in the country.

The committee further stated it would “prefer a more sympathetic design more similar to the present building, with a thatched roof using local materials.”