Agenda item

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 and in her view this would not protect pedestrians.

8.            Councillor Hilary Cole sought clarity on Lambourn Parish Council’s position on housing development. Councillor Rowlinson advised that they supported housing in the right place. They considered that this application should not be in a race yard and the parking would be inadequate.

9.            Councillor James Cole requested information regarding the running of the stable yard and the consequent traffic movements. Councillor Rowlinson advised that the racing day usually operated 6am-12pm, then 4pm-6pm. Horses would be lead in small groups to the warm up area. Councillor James Cole noted that this happened at present. Councillor Rowlinson continued that under the new development horses would have to cross the road to the new trotting area and this presented an increased risk to both horses and other road users. Councillor James Cole enquired whether the Parish Council objected to the trotting ring being located on the opposite side of the road. Councillor Rowlinson responded that in her view it would fragment the yard, which Policy CS12 sought to prevent. Councillor James Cole noted that the officers’ interpretation of policy CS12 in the committee report accepted that the proposed development would support the racing industry. Councillor Rowlinson advised that the statement that the applicant would put reinvestment into the yard would be unenforceable.

10.         Councillor Pick asked whether the relocation of the trotting ring to a larger field would be of benefit to the stable yard. Councillor Rowlinson expressed concern that the proposal was to create a small trotting ring in one corner of the field and horses might be able to escape.

11.         The Chairman permitted the objectors to table a plan depicting the access arrangements as it had been submitted as part of the application. Mr MacKinney and Mr Spary in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Pedestrians would be encouraged to use a pathway which would run close to the entrance of the stable yard. Horses would have to cross this pathway to access the new trotting ring.

·         The development would prejudice the ability of the yard to continue operation.

·         The development could set a precedent for other yards in Lambourn.

·         While they did not question the integrity of the applicant, the assurance that there would be reinvestment into the yard was unenforceable.

12.         Mr Parker and Mr Peate in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Parker advised that he had 40 years experience in the racing industry and was involved in the local community. He bought Windsor House in 2011; it was near derelict and he had invested £1m in the house and business. When he bought the house the only other interest had been from a developer.

·         A five-year lease with the trainer had been signed recently.

·         A new facility would be constructed in the paddock opposite the proposed site to improve the training environment for young horses before graduating to the gallops.

·         It was intended that some of the housing would be used by staff.

·         The applicant had worked with officers for a number of years to produce an acceptable scheme.

13.         Councillor Bryant noted that concerns had been raised regarding large vehicles using the access and enquired whether there would be turning space in the yard. Mr Parker responded that larger boxes would not be able to turn in the yard and might have to reverse out, with a member of staff to check the safety of the road. Mr Parker confirmed that this was the case at present. Councillor Bryant asked how the safety of the public could be guaranteed. Mr Parker advised that the safety of the public and horses was paramount and was of the view that the plans were sensible.

14.         Councillor Bryant further asked what assurances there were that the housing would be used to support those in the racing community. Mr Parker advised that one unit of affordable housing had been proposed and would be conditioned.

15.         Councillor Clive Hooker asked who had ultimate responsibility for safety on the stable yard. Mr Parker advised that it was the trainer.

16.         Councillor James Cole asked why he should not be concerned regarding potential conflict between young horses and pedestrians. Mr Parker responded that at present there was no proper access to the site. Under the application proposals there would be a formalised access with demarcated areas. As some of the housing would be used by staff if was likely that they would walk to work and be confident enough around horses so as not to be presented with any risk should they come into contact on the pathway. At present there was potential conflict between horses and Mr Parker’s guests and visitors but there had been no issues to date.

17.         Councillor Garth Simpson  asked what traffic analysis had been carried out on the potential conflict between the operation of the yard and residents. Mr Peate advised that a traffic assessment had been submitted with the application and it was not anticipated that movement of horses would coincide with the morning or evening peak.

18.         In response to a question from Councillor Pick, Mr Parker expressed the view that the new trotting ring would be better designed and a better training facility.

19.         Councillor Beck enquired where stable staff would park. Mr Parker advised that there were 5-6 spaces in the main yard. Councillor Beck further asked when the use of the alternative paddock would be formalised. Mr Peate advised that the legal agreement would cover this matter.

20.         Councillor Hilary Cole sought clarification on the intended use of the housing. Mr Parker advised that one unit would be managed by a housing association and the other may be offered to a member of staff on a lease. Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Mr Parker would be able to sell the site so there would be no guarantee. Michael Butler clarified that planning permission, if granted by the Committee, would be on the land and not personal to the applicant. He did not doubt that the applicant had legitimate intentions but it would be possible for the applicant to sell on the site. The S106 agreement would ensure one housing unit was used as affordable housing. The Registered Social Landlord would have the final say in which tenant would be offered the affordable property.

21.         Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked where the loading ramp would be. Mr Peate advised that the layout of the site would be determined under reserved matters. Councillor Benneyworth noted that there would be manoeuvring issues on the site and asked if the trainer was aware that there may be development on the site prior to signing the five-year lease. Mr Parker confirmed that was the case.

22.         Councillor Gordon Lundie, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee made the following points:

·         He had lived close to the site for 16 years and knew the area well.

·         While a member of the Western Area Planning Committee, he had voted against any application which would diminish a yard’s viability.

·         Windsor House had an illustrious history and the applicant had developed a thriving yard.

·         Policy CS12 was simple in that permanent fragmentation of yards should be avoided. The proposal before the Committee would challenge the viability and future of the yard.

·         In his experience, partial development of a yard would lead to full development and thus a risk to Lambourn’s racing industry.

·         He noted that the trainer was not present at the Committee.

·         Lambourn needed small, medium and large yards to be viable.

·         While Windsor House did require investment, the proposal was not the appropriate solution and could lead to development of the entire site.

23.         Councillor Bryant asked whether Councillor Lundie’s objection was regarding fragmentation. Councillor Lundie responded that Policy CS12 stated that the Council should permit development when it would benefit the racing industry and his view was that this proposal would not.

24.         Councillor Edwards asked whether there had been any accidents while Councillor Lundie lived in the area. Councillor Lundie advised that he was not aware of any involving horses but Crowle Road was often used as a shortcut to avoid the High Street and the road was therefore busy. Councillor Edwards asked whether additional pedestrians would be at additional risk. Councillor Lundie stated there was an increased risk as new residents may not know how to be patient around horses.

25.         Councillor James Cole sought clarification on Councillor Lundie’s views on fragmentation. Councillor Lundie advised that over the years he had seen small yards fail because they had not been managed to be successful. He did not believe that development of the site would support the yard to be successful.

26.         Councillor Virginia von Celsing asked Michael Butler to provide more information about Policy CS12. Michael Butler explained that the council had adopted the policy to support the local racing industry. In the officers’ report a balanced view had been taken and it had been recommended to the Committee that the application would support the local race horse economy. Councillor von Censing further asked whether there was any legal agreement to ensure money raised from the development would be reinvested. Michael Butler advised that it would not be a personal consent so the Council had no control to prevent the applicant selling on the development if he wished. The S106 agreement would cover the affordable housing unit and the trotting area.

27.         Councillor Beck expressed the view that it was an error that the alternative trotting ring could not have been dealt with under the reserved mattes application. Michael Butler stated that  with hindsight the agent should have  included in the red line of the development the trot up area,  and therefore conditions could have been applied to it.

28.         Councillor Pick raised a query regarding the location of trees in relation to the position of the houses. Michael Butler advised that layout would be determined under reserved matters but the permission, if granted would allow six houses to be built on the site. Councillor Pick further enquired upon the drainage arrangements; Michael Butler responded that details would need to be submitted to discharge condition 14.

29.         Councillor James Cole asked whether an application which included the land for the alternative trotting ring would avoid the fragmentation issue. Michael Butler advised that an application with no alternative trotting area was likely to have been refused under delegated powers but as there was an alternative available a balanced view had been taken to recommend approval. The S106 agreement would be worded in such a way to require that an alternative trotting area was provided before development could commence.

30.         Councillor Bryant asked Paul Goddard for more information regarding the assessment of road safety. Paul Goddard advised that the anticipated traffic levels associated with six houses would be very low and horses were not likely to be on the road during peak hours. Taking a common sense approach, horses were likely to be managed by trained staff and drivers should allow horses to pass.

31.         Councillor Simpson expressed the view that he would have liked firmer information regarding traffic movements.

32.         Councillor von Celsing stated that on the basis of Councillor Lundie’s presentation, she could not support the application. Councillor James Cole stated that he was not averse to the principle of the development and would be interested in Councillor Benneyworth’s views.

33.         Councillor Hilary Cole stated that Lambourn was a racing village and of members of the Committee only she and Councillor Bryant had contributed to the development of policy CS12. It was a strong policy and councillor Lundie was right to be concerned about the impact on the racing industry. Smaller yards should be supported but the proposal before the Committee was not the way forward.

34.         Councillor Benneyworth expressed the view that the trotting ring was in its present location because that was the most appropriate location; he did not think the field opposite the site was the best place for it. Councillor Benneyworth advised that he was involved in racing and had seen the erosion of training facilities. Horses could be dangerous animals so it was not ideal that the access to the site would be shared. Horse management was a seven day per week business and he had reservations about the proposal.

35.         Councillor Bryant posited that smaller stables might not continue to be economically viable. Councillor Hilary Cole suggested that smaller stables were essential to ensure trainers gained experience.

36.         Councillor Edwards stated that he had listened to the speakers and the debate. He expressed concern regarding the direction of the conversation, in the light of the limited objections by consultees and speculated that had the Jockey Club Estates not submitted an objection the application might have been approved. Councillor James Cole expressed the view that the Jockey Clubs Estate objection was relevant to the Committee’s consideration of Policy CS12. Further, he expressed the view that the application was not acceptable on grounds of safety.

37.         Councillor Hilary Cole proposed that the Committee reject officers recommendation and refuse planning permission on the ground of Policy CS12, the lack of a S106 agreement and concerns regarding the adequacy of access and the safety of pedestrians. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Beck.

38.         The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Cole as seconded by Councillor Beck.  At the vote the motion was carried, with one abstention from Councillor Edwards.

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

1. The Council is not satisfied that the application to develop part of the stables at Windsor House is acceptable, having regard to the advice and policy thrust of CS12 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026. This policy seeks, where possible, to retain and enhance existing race horse stables in the District area via non fragmentation and loss of facilities on site. This proposal does not satisfy that position, having regard in particular to the supporting text in the policy about protecting existing yards. In addition any development which could harm the future viability of a yard which supports local employment is contrary to the advice in policy CS10 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026 and the advice in paras 28 and 70 of the NPPF of 2012. It is thus unacceptable.

2. The applicant has failed to enter into the required s106 obligation which would ensure the delivery of one affordable housing unit on the application site. This lack of an affordable unit is contrary to policy CS6 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026. It is thus unacceptable. In addition a s106 obligation has not been agreed in terms of the delivery of the off-site trot / warm up area to replace the lost facility on site. This is contrary to the provisions of fragmentation in policy CS12 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026.

3. The Council is concerned that the proposed shared access into the site for both the stables and the proposed new dwellings has the potential to cause and exacerbate conditions of road danger and conflict between pedestrians, road vehicles and race horses especially during peak periods in the mornings and  evenings. Accordingly, notwithstanding the proposed s278 works for improving the local highways situation, the Council considers that the scheme is contrary to the advice in policy CS13 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026, and in particular the advice in the NPPF of 2012 paragraph 32 – bullet point 2. The application is accordingly unacceptable.

INFORMATIVE:

1.    This application has been considered by West Berkshire Council, and REFUSED. Should the application be granted on appeal there will be a liability to pay Community Infrastructure Levy to West Berkshire Council on commencement of the development. This charge would be levied in accordance with the West Berkshire Council CIL Charging Schedule and Section 211 of the Planning Act 2008.

2.    In attempting to determine the application in a way that can foster the delivery of sustainable development, the local planning authority has approached this decision in a positive way having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to try to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has also been unable to find an acceptable solution to the problems with the development so that the development can be said to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.