Agenda item

(Councillor Clive Hooker in the Chair.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/01883/FULD in respect of the conversion of existing stables and storage barn including new linking extension to form a 3 bedroom residential dwelling at land to the rear of The Sheiling, School Lane, East Garston.

2.    The Chairman noted that Councillor Chris Tonge from East Garston Parish Council had made an application to speak within the required timescales however this had not been recorded on the update sheet for the Committee. The Committee voted to permit Councillor Tonge to speak.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Chris Tonge, Parish Council representative, Thomas Cassells-Smith, objector, Mr Davies, applicant and Mr Steven Smallman, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.    Lydia Mather introduced the report and update sheet 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 strongly recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

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

·         In the Parish Council’s view the proposed development would encroach on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and contravene West Berkshire Council’s planning policies.

·         Opposition to the application was widely held in the local area. Concerns included potential overlooking and the need to maintain the land for equine use.

·         Should the Committee approve the application it could open the floodgates to similar applications.

6.    Councillor Anthony Pick asked what agricultural use the land could serve. Councillor Tonge responded that the land could be used as horse paddocks which was a valuable amenity in the area.

7.    Councillor James Cole asked for the parish council’s view regarding whether the barns were genuinely redundant, as the officer’s report noted that there was contradictory evidence. Councillor Tonge noted that the barns were in use by horses at the time of the ecological assessment in 2016.

8.    Councillor Clive Hooker enquired whether the paddocks would support the racing industry. Councillor Tonge responded that due to their small size it was unlikely that the site would be useful to the industry.

9.    Mr Cassells-Smith, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The site was outside the settlement boundary of East Garston. If the proposal was accepted by the Committee there was a risk of infilling by a further development.

·         He believed that the applicants wished to sell the land to a developer.

·         The proposal would destroy the character of the village.

·         There were safety concerns regarding the access as a door of The Sheiling would open directly onto the access road.

10.Councillor Paul Bryant enquired on what land the objectors feared a further development could be constructed. Mr Cassells-Smith indicated the position on the block plan.

11.Mr Davies and Mr Smallman, in addressing the Committee, raised the following points:

·         The application was in accordance with the Council’s policy C4. The proposed buildings for conversion were structurally sound and genuinely redundant; their conversion would not lead to an application for a replacement building.

·         The buildings were converted in 1975 from former pigsties and were never intended for stabling horses.

·         The applicant had formerly permitted grazing of horses on the land but the agreement excluded the use of the buildings. The buildings were not appropriate for commercial use and they were disused.

·         It was proposed that the applicants would live in the barn conversion.

·         It would be of sympathetic design and maintain the character of the area.

·         The site was well related to East Garston.

·         A construction ecological management plan would be used to mitigate the impact on any wildlife.

12.Councillor Anthony Pick asked how the application differed to a former application on the site decided in 2017. Mr Smallman advised that the landscaping had been modified and further information had been provided regarding the use of the buildings. Councillor Pick further asked about the access road cutting through the middle of The Sheiling’s garden. Mr Davies advised that it was common in the area and constant traffic was not expected.

13.Councillor Bryant questioned whether the buildings were of sound construction. Mr Smallman advised that the planning officer had accepted that the building was capable of conversion and met the test laid out in the relevant policy.

14.Councillor Adrian Edwards asked how the site was well related to the village when it was outside the settlement boundary. Mr Smallman advised it was on the edge of the village.

15.Councillor Jeff Back asked for more information regarding the access road. Mr Smallman advised that should the Committee be minded to approve the application the Committee could apply a Grampian condition to require that the current side door of The Sheiling was blocked off.

16.Councillor Cole asked whether the barns had been used for storing equine equipment. Mr Smallman advised that if they had it was without the applicant’s permission. Use of the barns as field shelter had been permitted at the applicant’s discretion.

17.Councillor Gordon Lundie, in addressing the Committee as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·         It was rare he disagreed with the Parish Council and he was confused why this application had attracted the level of objection it had.

·         The building was redundant and not attractive.

·         The Council had a housing target to meet and 300-500 dwellings in AONB spatial area of the District were assumed to be developed as ‘windfall gains’ such as this proposed development.

·         There would be a modest increase in height and footprint which would bring the buildings back into use. They had no essential function as there were no homeless horses in the area.

18.Councillor Beck asked for Councillor Lundie’s view on the access; Councillor Lundie noted there would be no significant increase in traffic and there were many narrow lanes in the area. There were planning solutions available to reduce the safety risks.

19.Councillor Virginia von Celsing questioned why Councillor Lundie supported development in the area as it was the AONB. Councillor Lundie responded that he had balanced his views regarding the right of an individual to enjoy their own property, the Council’s housing targets and the beautiful area and had concluded that it was a conversion not a new development so in his view should be permitted.

20.Councillor Pick asked whether there was a housing shortage in East Garston. Councillor Lundie advised that he was not in a position to comment. Councillor Pick further asked whether there might be further applications for developments in the area. Councillor Lundie stated that he would object to building on green field sites but supported the application as it was a conversion of redundant building.

21.Turning to questions for officers, Councillor Bryant asked whether the Highways Officer had considered the access onto the road or the suitability of the driveway. Paul Goddard confirmed that both had been assessed and the traffic figures did not cause a concern.

22.Councillor Bryant asked for the case officer’s view on whether the railway embankment was a visual barrier between the site and the village. Lydia Mather confirmed that the settlement boundary was the other side of the embankment from the site and in her view the site was not well related to the village.

23.Councillor Bryant recalled that formerly a building had to be worthy of retention in order to be converted and asked if this was still the case. Lydia Mather advised that this test was not in the current policy.

24.Councillor von Celsing asked whether the application would be submitted to the District Planning Committee if the Committee were minded to approve planning permission. Michael Butler advised that although the application was, in officers’ views, contrary to policy C4, it did not fundamentally undermine the policy so it would not need to be referred to the District Planning Committee if approved. Officers maintained a strong recommendation to refuse planning permission.

25.In commencing the debate, Councillor Bryant noted that a previous application had been refused in 2017 on sound grounds and he did not see how this application was so different as to warrant a different determination. He proposed that the Committee accept officers; recommendation and refuse planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Beck.

26.Councillor von Celsing expressed the view that it was a beautiful site and while she could appreciate why the applicants sought to convert the buildings, she disagreed with the Ward Member’s opinion.

27.Councillor Pick noted that the buildings were not viable to be used agriculturally and he was uncomfortable with the access arrangements. He declared he was unconvinced of argument to approve the application.

28.Councillor Cole opined that there was a safety issue with the access and he doubted that the buildings were genuinely redundant. They still had a use as private stables. Personally he liked the proposals but was led by the Council’s policy.

29.Michael Butler reminded the Committee that any permission was not personal and the site could be sold. The buildings were structurally sound and could be converted back to stables. The Committee should consider whether the application would conserve and enhance the AONB, preserve its remoteness and maintain the areas rural character.

30.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Bryant as seconded by Councillor Beck. 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:

Reasons:

1.    Whilst the stables and land are currently unoccupied or used the application fails to demonstrate that the buildings are genuinely redundant and there will not be a subsequent request for replacement stables within the blue line of the location plan. As such the proposed conversion to residential use is contrary to the requirements of Policy C4 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

2.    The proposed residential curtilage would be visually intrusive and have a harmful effect on the rural character of the area and its setting within the wider landscape. The site is further east than the existing pattern of residential development off School Lane and not well related to it. It is set within agricultural land and open to the north and east to the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed residential curtilage would introduce a formal garden area and associated domestic paraphernalia into this rural setting, contrary to Policy C4 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document, and Policies ADPP5 and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

3.    Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to assess the ecological impact of the proposed change of use and conversion works to the buildings on site to residential use. There may be protected species on site which would be impacted upon by the proposed development. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policy C4 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.