Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of use of agricultural land to land for siting 40 additional holiday lodges, construction of access road, parking spaces and hard standing bases and associated landscape planting and infrastructure
Location:	Land South of Lower Farm, Hambridge Lane, Newbury
Applicant:	West Berkshire Council
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the schedule of conditions (Section 8.1) and the completion of a planning obligation (Section 8.2) by 30th April 2018.   OR   If the planning obligation is not completed by 30th April 2018, DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to REFUSE PERMISSION, given the failure of the application to mitigate the impact of the development on the local Infrastructure and services as set out in Section 8.3, where expedient.

 

In accordance with point 7.2.8 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman asked the Committee if they were in agreement with continuing the meeting past 10.00 pm if necessary.  At the vote the motion was carried.

(Councillor James Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he knew one of the objectors on a personal basis and he had been lobbied on the application.  Councillors Jeff Beck, Hilary Cole and Virginia von Celsing had also been lobbied on the item.  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.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/01550/FULEXT in respect of change of use of agricultural land to land for siting 40 additional holiday lodges, construction of access road, parking spaces and hard standing bases and associated landscape planting and infrastructure at land south of Lower Farm, Hambridge Lane, Newbury.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Adrian Abbs, Mr Frank Chitty and Ms Sarah McGonnell, objectors, Mr Nick Laister, agent and Councillor Billy Drummond, speaking as Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Jake Brown introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  He advised that the recommendation had been amended in the Update Report to allow a reasonable time for the planning obligation to be completed.  He concluded that officers were recommending approval, having taken account of the Planning Inspector’s reasons for overturning the applicant’s previous application.  However, the considerations were finely balanced

4.         Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment on the highways matters.  He advised that Highways officers had objected to the previous application.  However it was overturned at Appeal, which was probably because it included access improvements that the Planning Inspector found to be acceptable.  The previous application had comprised 25 units with an estimated 30 vehicular movements into the site and 30 out on a daily basis.  The estimates for the current application were an additional 48 vehicular movements into the site and 48 out on a daily basis.

5.         It was noted that there was no one present from Greenham Parish Council to address the Committee on the application.

6.         Mr Abbs, Mr Chitty and Ms McGonnell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Point 6.3 in the officer’s report relating to the ‘Impact on Heritage Assets’ had underplayed the impact the development would have on the Pigeon’s Farm heritage buildings as the buffer between them would be eroded.

·           Point 6.4.4 of the officer’s report in relation to the impact of noise was also incorrect as the units would have outdoor verandas and there had already been an increase in noise from the current units.

·           There was an error in the applicant’s report at point 5.5, which stated that Great Crested Newts were absent from the site, which was incorrect.

·           The units were called holiday chalets but they were being advertised as retirement properties and permanent dwellings.

·           This was a rural area enjoyed by walkers and there would be a 160% increase in traffic, which would equate to 260 vehicle journeys per day, without including delivery vehicles accessing the site.

·           Conditions were included in the Inspector’s Appeal Decision Report relating to the need for a second footpath, which was later overturned and would impact on the safety of local residents and walkers.

·           They implored the Committee to consider the conditions included in the Appeal Decision Report.

7.         Councillor Paul Bryant queried where the units were being advertised as retirement homes.  Mr Abbs replied that this had been on the Dream Lodge website and marketing information received from them.  In addition, a complaint had been submitted to Trading Standards by residents from outside the district in 2017.

8.         Mr Laister in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The development would meet visitors’ expectations and create local employment in line with local policy and the West Berkshire Economic Development Strategy 2013-18.

·           Amendments and improvements had been made to the scheme since last year.  For example, net gains would be made to bio diversity and traffic calming would be made to the Public Right of Way (PROW).

·           None of the consultees had provided any objections to the scheme.

·           It would increase expenditure in the local area.

·           There was no requirement to consider the landscape and visual impact of the development.  However they would be providing landscape planting to improve the site and a planning condition had been included in relation to this. This would include two-three metre high trees and fast growing plants.

·           The neighbouring properties were in excess of 80 metres from the site and Environmental Health officers had not raised any concerns about the impact from noise.

·           They had provided a comprehensive Heritage Statement.

·           Traffic calming would be provided along the access track and Highways officers had not raised any objections to the application.

·           The development was sustainable and complied with all the relevant planning policies.

·           The applicant would be donating £31,000 to the Wildlife Trust and a contribution of £16,000 would be made to public transport improvements.

9.         Councillor Jeff Beck noted that the Planning Inspector had been in favour of a separate footpath but this had been overturned.  He therefore asked if the application was approved, whether the applicant and Rivar would reinstate the offer to provide a separate footpath.  Mr Laister replied that they would be prepared to discuss the reinstatement of the footpath with Rivar to see if it could be provided.  However, the traffic calming measures they would be introducing would also slow the traffic and make the road safer.

10.      Councillor Anthony Pick noted that Dream Lodge was offering properties for purchase on its website and asked how they would ensure they would only be used for holiday lets.  Mr Laister assured him that they had standard conditions covering this, which were relatively straight forward to enforce and there was a considerable amount of case law on this type of enforcement.  In addition, purchasers had to demonstrate they had another permanent residence.  The site would be a mixture of lodges that had been sold and others that had been retained for holiday lettings by Dream Lodge.  As a result, people renting the chalets for a holiday let would not know if it was owned by a private owner or Dream Lodge.

11.      Councillor Pick asked why this application for a further 40 lodges had been submitted.  Mr Laister advised that following the high level of interest in the first phase of lodges, Dream Lodge had taken the view that a second phase was viable.

12.      Councillor Pick went onto enquire how many of the 25 lodges in phase one had been constructed and how many were being offered as holiday lets.  Mr Laister advised that 80 percent had been completed and 60 percent of the total would be offered for holiday lets.

13.      Councillor Adrian Edwards referred to the point raised by Mr Abbs when he had suggested that the chalets were being offered for sale as permanent retirement homes.  Mr Laister confirmed that the units were popular as retirement investments but could not be used as permanent retirement homes and he suggested that perhaps this related to another site.

14.      Councillor Bryant questioned whether they were licensed as holiday homes and Mr Laister confirmed that this was the case.

15.      Councillor Bryant further questioned where the construction of the access road would start and end.  Mr Laister confirmed that it was the section that led to the diversion from the PROW and would include an improved surface and traffic calming measures.

16.      Councillor Hilary Cole enquired as to whether a register of lettings would be maintained and she was assured that this would be the case.

17.      Councillor Virginia von Celsing asserted that if it was possible to purchase the chalets and use them for holiday homes on a frequent basis, they could effectively become a permanent home.  Mr Laister confirmed that this was possible but the purchaser still had to have another permanent home and was required to demonstrate this by providing council tax and utility bills.  They were also required to sign a contract stating that they would not be residing at the chalet.

18.      Councillor Pick asked about progress with the boundary treatment and hard and soft landscaping.  Mr Laister advised that 90 percent of the planting and landscape management had been completed.  They had hoped it would be completed by Easter, but it had been delayed by the bad weather and they were now aiming to complete it by the first May Bank Holiday.

19.      Councillor Pick further enquired about completion of the reception centre and he was told this would also be completed by the first May Bank Holiday.

20.      Councillor James Cole asked if the chalets would be furnished and Mr Laister responded in the affirmative.

21.      Councillor Drummond in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           It would set a precedent for further development in the surrounding fields, including residential development.

·           He was in full agreement with the comments made by Mr Abbs, Mr Chitty and Ms McGonnell and hoped Members would consider them.

·           The applicant was actively pre-selling the units suitable for permanent and retirement homes.

·           The footpath needed to be made up to a bridleway and traffic calming measures were required.

·           There would be an increase in light and noise pollution.

·           There would be an adverse effect on the character and beauty of the area.

·           Access to the site was unsuitable.

·           The application did not address the need for housing and resources to support local housing needs.

·           The development would not be of benefit to the local community.

22.      Councillor Hilary Cole questioned whether officers would have recommended approval of the application if refusal of the previous application had not been overturned by the Planning Inspector.  Derek Carnegie confirmed that if the previous application had not been overturned, they would be recommending refusal.

23.      Councillor Beck noted that the Inspector had made a strong argument for a separate footpath and improvements to access to the site.  These had later been overturned, which he considered a retrograde step.  He therefore asked whether the Council had endeavoured to obtain a separate footpath with this application.  Jake Brown confirmed that he had requested this from the agent; however the agent had confirmed this could not be achieved as was agreed by the Council in the application to remove the separate footpath.

24.      Councillor Bryant queried whether a condition could be included stating that an access road and a separate footpath should be completed before construction commenced on the site.  Jake Brown responded that there had been a condition to this effect in the last application and therefore, it would be unnecessary to repeat it.

25.      Councillor Bryant added that as the applicant had shown a reluctance to carry out the improvements to the access road, it was important that a condition was included stating this should be undertaken before any further chalets were constructed.  Jake Brown acknowledged that this could be achieved, however it was also possible to enforce the earlier condition.

26.      Councillor Bryant noted that Environmental Health had stated a licence was required as the site was 50 metres from a road and he queried which road this related to.  Jake Brown advised that as this was an Environmental Health requirement, it would be necessary to query it with them.

27.      Councillor Edwards asked what direction the bus route would take and Paul Goddard explained that the previous application included Section 106 monies for buses, but this was for general bus routes and there would not be a bus route in this area.  This was following on from the previous application

28.      Councillor James Cole queried the requirement for the buffer zone and the habitat for the Great Crested Newts.  Jake Brown assured him that a buffer zone under separate land ownership remained between the development and the heritage assets.  In addition, a Habitat Enhancement Management Plan that included the protection of the Great Crested Newts would be secured by condition.

29.      Councillor Pick questioned whether condition four in the original planning permission had been implemented.  Jake Brown advised that the signage had not been implemented and nor had some of the improvements to the PROW.

30.      Councillor Hilary Cole asked if the Planning Service had had sight of the letting register and Jake Brown confirmed that this had been received and was currently with the Enforcement Team.

31.      Councillor Hilary Cole further enquired as to the public benefits in the NPPF that were referred to in the case officer’s report and Jake Brown replied that this related to the economic benefits.

32.      Councillor Clive Hooker asked for confirmation of the amended date for the applicant to complete the planning obligations and was advised that this had been extended to 29 June 2018.

33.      In considering the above application, Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the Planning Inspector had only approved the original 25 chalets and this application would take it up to 65 units.  She therefore speculated whether this would have been approved if the original application had been for 65 chalets.  Since Mr Laister had confirmed that the standard size of the Dream Lodge sites was 50+ units, the submission of the earlier smaller application might have been a ploy to obtain approval.  Consequently, she proposed that the Committee refused this application, which would send a message to the Planning Inspector to say that the original application should have been refused.

34.      Derek Carnegie interjected that if the application was refused, it would be necessary to provide planning reasons for this.  Councillor Hilary Cole responded that the Planning Inspector had approved 25 units on the site, which would not impact on the heritage buildings and landscape.  In addition, access to the site had been approved for 25 units and not 65 units.

35.      Councillor Pick noted that Newbury Town Council was interested in the development of Newbury Leisure and consequently he was not as anti the application as some of the other Committee Members.  However the access road was in a bad condition and some of the other conditions had not yet been fulfilled.  In addition, he was concerned the Planning Inspector had allowed representations to be made to him that made the wording of holiday lets unclear.  He was also disturbed that sites could be sold and it had not been made clear to purchasers that these were holiday lets.

36.      Councillor Hooker added that some of the chalets were being sold as investments, so it would be possible for them to be inhabited for the whole year.

37.      Councillor von Celsing stressed that just because the Planning Inspector had approved the earlier application for 25 units, it did not mean that the Committee should approve the application for a further 40 units.  Therefore she was unable to support it.

38.      Councillor Edwards seconded the proposal for refusal and added that he was opposing the application as it was over development, out of keeping with the area and the infrastructure was inadequate.

39.      Councillor James Cole stated that the access road was dangerous for walkers and the Planning Inspector had worked on the perspective that HSG1applied to housing and not holiday lets.  There appeared to be a query about whether these chalets were holiday lets and he believed the Planning Inspector had been misled.

40.      Councillor Simpson said that he was opposing the application as it did not provide sufficient screening for neighbouring properties.

41.      Councillor Paul Hewer expressed the view that the first application was a Trojan horse and he could not support this one.

42.      The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Hilary Cole as seconded by Councillor Edwards to refuse planning permission.  At the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.         Impact on setting of listed buildings

The proposed development would detrimentally impact on the setting of the Grade II listed buildings to the south, Pigeon’s Farm and Hall Barn House.  The heritage significance of the two listed barns, lies in their traditional appearance and historic construction, along with their contribution to the group value of the former farmstead.  To the extent that both the visibility and historical context of the farm relies on its relationship with the surrounding fields, the loss of further agricultural land to the north of Pigeon Farm and the subsequent reduction in the size of the agricultural buffer, would have some detrimental effect on the setting of the listed buildings.  This fact is recognised in the applicant’s Heritage Statement (HS), which finds that the proposed development would result in the slight loss of significance of these heritage assets as a result of change within their setting.  The harm would be less than substantial, however, there would, nevertheless, be real and serious harm which requires clear and convincing justification for it to be overcome.  The public benefits of the development proposed are not considered to outweigh the real and serious harm identified and there are no material considerations that justify the harm to the setting of the listed buildings as a result of the proposed development.

Therefore the application is considered to run contrary to Policies CS14 and CS19 of the Core Strategy 2006-2026 as well as the NPPF.

2.         Access

The application site is to be accessed off a public right of way (GREE/6/3).  This consists of an unadopted gravel track of poor surface, width and alignment.  It is considered that the increased traffic generated by the proposal will be detrimental to users of the public right of way. In the absence of any plan to segregate vehicle users and pedestrians, it is considered that the application runs contrary to Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and the NPPF.

3.         Impact on Character and Appearance of area

The proposed change of use for an additional 40 holiday lodges is considered to result in an overdevelopment of the site, and, in combination with the existing use to the north for 25 holiday lodges and a reception building, would introduce development that is out of keeping with the area.  Therefore, the development proposed would result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of users of the public right of way contrary to Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and the NPPF.

4.         Lack of Planning Obligation

The application fails to secure contributions to mitigate the impact on infrastructure and services (local bus and local living landscape).  These are considered necessary to mitigate the impact of the development proposed in accordance with the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the NPPF.   

Therefore, this application is contrary to Policies CS5, CS13 and CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, the Planning Obligations SPD (December 2014) and the NPPF and PPG as well as the statutory obligations of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) (as amended), the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended).