Issue - meetings

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/03392/OUTD in respect of land at Windsor House Stables, Crowle Road, Lambourn.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Jane Rowlinson, Parish Council representative, Mr David MacKinney and Mr Jerry Spary, objectors, and Mr Charlie Parker and Mr Aaron Peate, applicant and agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Michael Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable, subject to the first completion of a s 106 planning obligation. Officers on balance recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.            Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment of the highways matters. He advised that the Highways Officer had considered the design which complied with the Council’s standards for road width, sight lines and parking. Objectors had raised concerns regarding traffic movements and potential conflict between the residents of the proposed dwellings and the activity of the stable yard. Officers had estimated that the development would generate 32 traffic movements per day, of which four would be in each of the morning and evening peaks. Paul Goddard admitted he was not an equine expert however the site would generate a small number of traffic movements so he did not think it would cause harm.

5.            Councillor Rowlinson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Lambourn Parish Council supported the local racing industry. The relocation of the current trotting ring would make the stable yard inoperable and so they could not support the application.

·         There would be horses crossing the road from the stables to the relocated trotting ring several times per day. It would be difficult to maintain the safety of the road and road users because horses were unpredictable animals.

·         The number of traffic movements had been underestimated as there would also be horse boxes and delivery vehicles using the dual access.

·         The proposal would cause fragmentation of the stable yard, which Policy CS12 sought to prevent.

·         There had also been flood issues in the area.

6.            Councillor Paul Bryant sought clarification on what had been meant by dual access as the proposal showed only one access point to the development. Councillor Rowlinson advised that she meant the access would have dual-use by residents and the stable yard.

7.            Councillor Adrian Edwards asked whether pedestrians or horses had priority on the highway. Councillor Rowlinson advised that horses would keep left and they and their handlers wore high visibility jackets. Vehicles would be allowed to pass if it was appropriate but as it was likely that young horses would be using the road, there was a risk to pedestrians sharing the space because there would be no barrier or buffer. Councillor Edwards sought clarification that there would be no pedestrian footpath. Councillor Rowlinson advised that there would be a 2m wide pathway with no kerb  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55