Agenda item

(Councillor James Cole declared an other registrable interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he owned land which abutted the site. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would stand down from the Committee during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter, but would remain present and address the Committee as Ward Member.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01441/HOUSE in respect of the demolition of a garden store, external alterations to the Eastern Pavilion including the provision of rooflights (retrospective), the erection of new Western Pavilion to provide home office facilities at ground level, guest accommodation at first floor and a basement level garage at Hayward Green Farm, West Woodhay.

2.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Robert MacDonald, Parish Meeting representative, Mr Ewan Christian and Mr Harry Henderson, objectors, and Mr Steven Sensecall, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.    Matthew Shepherd 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. Officers on balance recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.    Mr Macdonald in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Parish Meeting objected to overdevelopment of the AONB.

·         The site was previously a farm before permission was granted for a small dwelling. There had been 25 planning applications under different names in recent years. There had been no engagement with the neighbours or Parish Meeting for any of the applications.

·         It was unlikely that the applicant would comply with conditions.

·         The dwelling on the site was already having an impact on neighbours’ boreholes, ponds and aquafers.

·         It was disappointing that there had been no consultation response from the SUDS officer or AONB board.

·         A near identical application submitted the previous year had been refused.

·         The internal and external lighting would have an adverse impact on the dark night skies.

·         There was inconsistency in the planning approach as an underground car park was proposed for permission whereas an application for a four bedroom house in West Woodhay had recently been refused additional parking spaces.

·         There were inconsistencies around the presentation of the building’s residential curtilage, including apparent increases over time.

5.    Councillor Paul Bryant asked why there was a concern regarding water when Thames Water had raised no objections. Mr Macdonald responded that there were pumps under the existing dwelling on the site which neighbours believed was having an adverse impact on boreholes in the area. Boreholes were not Thames Water’s responsibility and a full survey should be carried out before the application was determined.

6.    Councillor Anthony Pick asked whether the strict lighting conditions were satisfactory. Mr Macdonald expressed the view that the applicant had previously demonstrated poor compliance with conditions and he was concerned that the additional pavilion would increase the impact of light pollution on neighbours by the site.

7.    Mr Christian and Mr Henderson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The level of light pollution was inappropriate for a rural area.

·         There were discrepancies regarding the residential curtilage.

·         The basement of the main house was below the water level and required pumps to keep it dry. This was having an adverse impact on the area. A large underground car park would require more pumps. A survey should be undertaken at the expense of the applicant.

·         All windows faced away from the site’s central courtyard and therefore all light pollution would impact upon neighbours. If the Committee were minded to grant the application the Pavillion should be rotated so the light spilled into the courtyard.

·         Visitors to the village had made adverse comments regarding the existing dwelling on the site.

·         The Committee should not permit any further development on the site.

8.    Councillor Bryant asked where the pumped water went. Mr Christian advised that surrounding buildings with a slightly elevated ground level were having issues with their water supplies. Water was being pumped down the valley. West Woodhay was a wet area.

9.    Councillor Pick expressed the view that officers had understood the lighting issue and suggested appropriate conditions, he asked why these were not accepted. Mr Christian noted that he had not read the proposed conditions, which in any event could only deal with external and not internal lighting. All except one window faced away from the courtyard and the applicant should bear the burden of light pollution rather than the neighbours and road users.

10.Councillor Adrian Edwards asked whether Thames Water were responsible for boreholes. Councillor Hilary Cole advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Team was responsible and they had submitted no objections.

11.Mr Sensecall in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Officers had confirmed that the application was in accordance with the relevant policies.

·         In relation to the character of the AONB, the tighter cluster of buildings would be a visual improvement and was not deemed unacceptable.

·         Demolition of the garden store and a planning condition to instruct that use of the pavilion be ancillary would prevent overdevelopment.

·         The officer considered that the lighting would cause no significant harm. The nearest neighbour was 200m away. The applicant would accept an external lighting condition relating to the whole site.

·         Neither Thames Water nor Environmental Health had raised objections. No further information had been requested from the applicant in relation to water issues. There was no evidence to support claims that there were problems with boreholes in the area.

·         There was a long planning history on the site. The house and existing permission had consent. The additional pavilion would add symmetry and accord with the neoclassical style of the house.

12.Councillor Virginia von Celsing asked why the Committee should trust that the garden store would be demolished when previous conditioned demolitions had not. Mr Sensecall advised that although there had been discussions, demolition of a building had not previously been included in the list of decisions.

13.Councillor von Celsing asked for a view on whether the house was already light polluting in the AONB. Mr Sensecall expressed the view that it was not.

14.Councillor von Celsing asked whether a neoclassical style house was appropriate where a small farmhouse had previously been sited. Mr Sensecall advised that the Committee were not looking at the application from that starting point.

15.Councillor Bryant asked where the pumped water went. Mr Sensecall advised that it filled a pond near the eastern boundary.

16.Councillor Edwards enquired whether a hydrological survey had been undertaken prior to the proposal that the ground should be dug out for a car park. Mr Sensecall advised that it had not. Councillor Edwards posited that it would be sensible, before removing a large amount of earth in a wet area, to establish whether there might be any impact on the water table.

17.Councillor Beck asked why there had been no engagement by the applicant with the Parish Meeting. Mr Sensecall stated that he could not speak for the applicant but expressed the view that he could see how engagement would be beneficial. He maintained that a lack of engagement was not a sufficient planning reason to refuse the application.

18.Councillor Pick asked what light pollution would be caused by the internal lighting. Mr Sensecall responded that it would not be reasonable to impose a condition on internal lighting.

19.Councillor Pick enquired whether the applicant would be amenable to the removal of permitted development rights. Mr Sensecall noted that the Committee could remove permitted develop rights if it chose.

20.Councillors Anthony Stansfeld and James Cole in adressing the Committee as the Ward Members raised the following points:

·         What had formerly been a henhouse outside a hamlet now looked like a Travelodge and was the consequence of weak planning.

·         The officer’s report was inadequate and had not made clear what the application was for. It had been described as the demolition of a garden store but the application was actually for the erection of a large dwelling, bigger than the average dwelling.

·         The paper trail regarding changes to the residential curtilage of the site was inadequate.

·         The Council wanted development that enhanced the AONB, not developments that were only ‘not unacceptable’.

·         There would be a significant ecological impact, including on swallows and newts.

·         They agreed with other issues raised by the Parish Meeting and objectors.

·         The proposals did not respect the area and would be a carbuncle in West Woodhay.

·         The Committee should not worsen the damage already done by permitting the site and existing pavilion.

·         A mansion had been built on a marshy field. Thames Water’s nearest waste water infrastructure was half a mile away from the site. Councillor James Cole stated he could provide more information regarding the water flow.

21.Councillor Beck requested more information regarding the water flow. Councillor James Cole advised that he owned the land downstream from the site. Overspill from the small pond near the site’s eastern boundary would flow into woodland and eventually into the River Enborne. The issue was not relevant to Thames Water. The land in the area was wet and the existing house on the site could not have been built without water pumps. Further construction on the site would require more pumps. No survey had been completed regarding the water impact.

22.Councillor Bryant asked if it was the Ward Members’ view that not development larger than a three bedroom house should be permitted in the AONB. Councillor Stansfeld stated that three large houses would not be permitted anywhere else in the AONB so questioned why they should be permitted in West Woodhay. Councillor Bryant challenged that similar houses could be found near Kintbury.

23.Councillor Hooker asked what observations there were regarding the absence of a response from the AONB Board. Councillor Stansfeld explained that the Board was comprised of three volunteers who looked after the entirety of the North Wessex Downs AONB which stretched eastwards towards Swindon.

24.Turning to questions to officers, Councillor Hilary Cole sought to view the photographs of the site and these were displayed to the Committee.

25.Councillor Beck requested more information regarding allegations about the residential curtilage of the property. Matthew Shepherd advised that the curtilage shown matched a previous application on the site and officers were content with the red line proposed in the application.

26.Councillor Pick queried why there was no comment from the SUDS officer. Matthew Shepherd advised that the officer was invited to respond to the consultation and was prompted but could not be compelled to provide a response. The site was not in a critical drainage zone and there had been no evidence submitted in relation to the ground water issues. Derek Carnegie added that the SUDS officer would not usually be concerned about a property of such a distance from the nearest property.

27.Councillor Pick enquired whether Condition 7 applied to the whole site. Matthew Shepherd advised that it included the eastern pavilion but he would not recommend applying the condition to the main house as it had been covered in a previous planning permission.

28.Councillor von Celsing asked for more information on the property’s curtilage. Derek Carnegie advised that officers were content that the curtilage had been accurately allocated in the submitted plans.

29.Councillor von Celsing asked of officers could expand on the judgement that there would be no adverse impact on the AONB. Derek Carnegie advised that the AONB Board had been consulted for their views and that if they had advised there would be an adverse impact then it would have added weight to that argument.

30.Councillor Bryant noted the Parish Meeting’s claim that an application nearby had been refused on the grounds that it had sufficient parking already and asked whether the Council had set a maximum level. Matthew Shepherd advised that the Council could not set a restriction.

31.Councillor Edwards asked whether a hydrological survey was required when an excavation was carried out. Matthew Shepherd advised that there had been nothing to ask the agent to action as no evidence of any risk had been received.

32.Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked for more information regarding the windows. Matthew Shepherd explained that most of the pavilion windows would face the trees on the edge of the site. Lightspill from internal lighting could not be controlled through the Planning process. Councillor Benneyworth asked if additional screening could be conditioned. Matthew Shepherd advised that Condition 6 covered the matter.

33.Councillor Hooker asked what the distance was to the nearest neighbour from the proposed pavilion. Matthew Shepherd estimated 300 yards.

34.Councillor Beck enquired whether a condition to require a hydrological survey could be imposed if the Committee were minded to approve the application. Derek Carnegie advised that it would be preferable to complete the survey before consent was granted in case any issues arose.

35.In commencing the debate, Councillor von Celsing expressed the view that the application would be fundamental overdevelopment of a site in the AONB and proposed that officers recommendation not be accepted and instead planning permission be refused. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Beck.

36.Councillor Beck stated that reasons for refusal should include: no reply had been received from the AONB Board and a response should be awaited for this significant development, no response had been received from the SUDS officer and the Committee had heard of a potential significant impact on water access for nearby residents. Derek Carnegie suggested that the Committee may have a case to defer determination of the application until all the information required had been gathered.

37.Jo Reeves advised the Chairman that that a motion had already been put to the Committee so it should be determined before an alternative proposal to defer was entertained.

38.Councillor Edwards recalled that at the Parkway development in Newbury water pumping had been required. Despite a survey which concluded there would be no harm to the area, cracks began to appear in nearby Victoria Park. While the application before the Committee was not on the same scale the terrain was marshy and there was a risk that nearby houses. It was imperative that a survey was completed.

39.Councillor Pick expressed concern that the application was able to be brought to the Committee without a comment from the SUDS officer.

40.Councillor Hilary Cole stated that the proposal to refuse planning permission could be withdrawn, rather than voted upon.

41.Councillors von Celsing and Beck withdrew the proposal to refuse planning permission.

42.Councillor Beck proposed that the Committee defer determination of the application until the requested information was available This was seconded by Councillor Pick.

43.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on Councillor Beck’s proposal as seconded by Councillor Pick, to defer planning determination. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred to a later meeting.

The Committee adjourned between 8.03pm and 8.05pm.