Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she was a member of Chieveley Parish Council and had been present when the matter was discussed. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03553/FULD in respect of a proposal for the erection of a three bedroom rural workers dwelling associated with Curridge Green Riding School at land east of Curridge Green Riding School.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Lesley Dick, supporter, and Mrs Sara Dutfield, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Derek Carnegie 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 unacceptable and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers clearly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

4.    Mrs Dick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She was speaking as one of 39 supporters of the application and had lived in Curridge for 30 years.

·         The applicant, Mrs Dempsted, had agreed to take over the management of the stables.

·         The Riding School was valued by the community and helped to foster a love of the countryside in children.

·         The Council should nurture rural businesses.

·         The situation was a special case.

5.    Councillor Garth Simpson asked what the Riding School’s customer base was. Mrs Dick advised that she could not give a figure but it was busy particularly in evenings and weekends.

6.    Mrs Dutfield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The landowner sought to retire and handover management of the business to Mrs Dempster due to his age and deteriorating health.

·         The view of Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) was that Mrs Dempster could continue to move into the applicant’s property while the landowner was on holiday. This was unreasonable and impractical. The current owner could not provide 24 hour cover to the yard.

·         The business required investment and the sale of land to the applicant for the proposed dwelling would support capital to be raised and reinvested in the yard.

·         It was intended to sell the entire business to Mrs Dempster in the future.

·         The size of the proposed dwelling had been criticised in the committee report but had been designed to meet Mrs Dempster’s needs.

7.    Councillor Beck asked how long the house would take to build. Mrs Dutfield advised that it would be six months.

8.    Councillor Pick asked how many people were required to be on site overnight. Mrs Dutfield advised that one person was needed overnight and there were usually more during the day.

9.    Councillor Simpson asked why the sale of land for the dwelling was not connected to the business. Mrs Dutfield advised that the current landowner and Mrs Dempster had reached their own arrangement and it was intended to sell the business to Mrs Dempster in the future.

10.Councillor Pick asked how the property would be enforced as a rural workers dwelling when its ownership would not be tied to the business. Mrs Dutfield advised that planning conditions were separate to ownership and it would be up to the Local Planning Authority to enforce the matter should a complication arise.

11.Councillor Hilary Cole, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         She had been asked to call-in the application by Mr and Mrs Mills, the current landowners, to provide an opportunity for the applicant to present their case.

·         It would have been preferable for the application to have been submitted by the landowner and the dwelling to be retained in their ownership.

·         If the applicant built the property and was then unable to manage the business there may be a further application for a further dwelling for a new manager.

·         The council’s policy C5 required the applicant to demonstrate the need for the property and they had not met the test. Therefore the proposal was for a new dwelling in open countryside which there was a presumption against, except in the case of exceptional need.

·         An application for a gyspy and traveller site near to Curridge had been refused and dismissed at appeal due to the impact on the area and poor access to amenities.

·         She asked the Committee to determine the application in line with the Council’s policies, albeit reluctantly as she knew the value of the business to the local community.

12.Councillor Pick asked whether Councillor Hilary Cole’s objection was purely on policy grounds. She responded that she expected there were different views and had considered the application in relation to the Council’s policies.

13.Councillor James Cole stated that he did not agree with the RAC report and it would not be practical to run the business remotely. He agreed with the supporter that the Council should support rural businesses and recognised that it was essential for the Riding School to have 24/7 presence on site. He was however not comfortable that the site could be tied to the business and therefore could not support the application.

14.Councillor Paul Bryant stated that he might have more sympathy if two people were required on site overnight but it had been confirmed that only one was needed. He accepted that the current landowner wished to retire and had a right to stay in his home. He proposed that the Committee accept the officer’s recommendations and refuse planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole.

15.Councillor Beck recognised that there were dwellings neighbouring the site which had no connection to the business. He expressed the view that all practical reasons should overcome the planning concerns.

16.Councillor Pick stated that he agreed with the criticism of the RAC report which in his view had been ill-considered and impractical. He had sympathy with the applicant and understood the landowner’s wishes to remain on site. Councillor Pick continued that he agreed with the planning concerns which could not be easily overcome. He would have preferred a better proposal and better advice.

17.Derek Carnegie advised that if Members were minded to approve planning permission, the application would be referred to the District Planning Committee as the proposal was outside the Council’s development plan.

18.Councillor Simpson noted that had the site not been within the AONB officers might have made a different recommendation.

19.The Chairman invited the committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Bryant as seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole to accept officers recommendations and refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried with two votes against. Councillor Beck asked that his vote against be recorded.

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

1.    The application site is located within the open countryside, outside of any defined settlement boundary where there is a presumption against new housing subject to certain exceptions including, amongst others, housing to accommodate rural workers where genuine need can be demonstrated. In these particular circumstances, the applicant has failed to demonstrate essential need for the proposed house. Furthermore, the size of the proposed house, at 220sq.m is considered too large and out of scale with any genuine business need. In the absence of satisfactory justification, the proposal would amount to new housing located outside of any defined settlement boundary within an unsustainable location in conflict with the overall aims and objectives of Core Strategy Policies ADDP1, ADDP5, CS1, CS12, Housing Site Allocations DPD Policies C1, C5 and Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.