Agenda item

Proposal:	Conversion and redevelopment of land and buildings at Shalford Farm. Wedding shop, estate farm shop, overnight accommodation, bakery and cookery school, restaurant and yoga studio, biomass boiler and associated parking and landscaping.
Location:	Shalford Farm, Wasing.
Applicant:	Trustees of the 1975 Wasing Settlement.
Recommendation:	The Head of Development and Planning be authorised to REFUSE planning permission.

 

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe re-joined the meeting at 7.30pm)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/02635/COMIND in respect of the conversion and redevelopment of land and buildings at Shalford Farm; wedding shop, estate farm shop, overnight accommodation, bakery and cookery school, restaurant and yoga studio, biomass boiler and associated parking and landscaping.

Michael Butler introduced the report to Members’ of the Committee, which recommended the application be refused, and ran through the key points. The application had been called in by the Ward Member, irrespective of the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Mr Butler drew attention to the update sheet, which detailed the Environment Agency had formally removed their objection to the application and were recommending conditional permission.

Mr Butler stated that the update sheet also contained further information as to why the applicant’s agent considered the provision of a shuttle bus to be effective and viable in transporting both employees and visitors to the site. Mr Butler stated that the Officer view was that the site would not become sustainable through the provision of a shuttle bus. The Highways Officer had also not altered his recommendation for refusal as a result of the proposed shuttle service.

Mr Butler concluded that the update sheet also contained answers to queries raised by Members at the site visit. He confirmed that the number of employees would rise from seven to 31 if the application was approved. Footpaths around the site were not considered by Officers to assist the sustainability of the site. Finally Mr Butler confirmed that the distance from the application red line site boundary to the farm house was 41 metres.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mary Cowdery, Parish Council representative, Martin Caiger-Smith, objector, and Josh Dugdale and Steven Smallman, applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

Ms Mary Cowdery in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Members who had attended the site visit would have noted that the site was located within a quiet part of rural West Berkshire.

·                    If the development was to be approved the visual aspect of the site could then be likened to being in the middle of an urban area like Thatcham.

·                    Peace and quiet was what residents had been seeking when moving to the area.

·                    There had been concerns raised regarding the potential light pollution from the development. The community of Brimpton wanted to retain their dark night sky. Approving the proposal would increase light and traffic in the area.

·                    The site, if approved, would be used twenty four hours per day, seven days a week and would result in lorries travelling to and from the site for delivery purposes.

·                    The site was not on a bus or cycle route. Ms Cowdery did not feel that the shuttle bus proposal would work as visitors would wish to come and go as they pleased. The shuttle bus could help to shuttle people around the site however, would not be suitable for taking people further afield.

·                    The road approaching the site from the A4 was a single track road with a humpback bridge. The road flooded on a regular basis.

·                    The car parking proposed was not adequate for the site and because of the nature of the area, on road parking would not be suitable.

·                    In places the road approaching the site was too narrow for cars to pass each other. The turning from the A4 at Woolhampton involved crossing a single lane humpback bridge. There were dangerous bends when approaching the site.

·                    The Parish Council was concerned about the risk of water pollution in the River Enborne.

·                    The Parish Council was not against redevelopment of the site but the disadvantages of the current application to the local community, outweighed the benefits.

·                    On the grounds detailed above, the Parish Council could not support the proposal. 

Member Questions to Parish Council

Councillor Alan Law asked if the facility close by at Rosebourne was similar to what was being proposed. Ms Cowdery confirmed that Rosebourne was very dissimilar to the proposal, which was aimed at enhancing its wedding business. Rosebourne on the other hand was a garden centre with a restaurant.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked if the local area suffered from noise problems as a result of the site currently. Ms Cowdery stated that it depended on how close residents lived to the site. She lived half a mile from the site and rarely had an issue with noise.

Councillor Emma Webster noted Brimpton’s Parish Plan and asked if it contained reference to economic development within the area. Ms Cowdery was unable to confirm this point because although the Parish Council oversaw the development of the Parish Plan it was controlled by a separate Committee.  

Councillor Richard Crumly asked how long ago the site had been used as a farm. Ms Cowdery stated that she had lived in the area for about 50 years and could not recall the site being used as a farm.

Councillor Bridgman referred to Rosebourne and asked for confirmation that it was located on the A340 and queried how this differed from the roads approaching the application site. Mr Cowdery confirmed that the A340 was a classified A road, whereas the application site was located on an unclassified road.

Councillor Metcalfe had noted that, upon leaving the site visit, the A340 was in close proximately and therefore there were acceptable transport routes close by.

Objector Representation

 

Mr Martin Caiger-Smith (on behalf of Nick Caiger Smith as agreed by the Chairman) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         His family had lived at and cared for Shalford Farm since 1960. The family were aware that the site was of historical interest being home to ancient ruins and some of the house dated back to the 15^th century.

·         The 41 metres referred to in the Planning Officer’s presentation and update sheet was the front lawn at the front of the house.

·         His family were mindful of the local economy however, were concerned about the scale and complexity of the proposed development. There would be a new buildings including a Dutch barn and other service facilities, most of which would depend on each other to remain viable in support of the wedding business.

·         Most aspects of the development would operate seven days per week. Visitors would be travelling to and from the shop, restaurant and cooking school all day. Staff and wedding guests would be heading home late at night and then there would only be a few hours respite before operations commenced again in the morning. In light of this, Mr Caiger-Smith struggled to see how noise would be controlled.

·         Local roads were narrow with passing places and were often at risk of flooding. They were not suitable for the volume of traffic that would be generated by the site. Mr Caiger-Smith did not feel that the Shuttle Bus service would go far enough in mitigating the impact that would be caused.

·         Noise, light and air pollution within a quiet rural area would hugely impact upon the lives of local residents.

·         Mr Caiger-Smith stated that the garden of Shalford Farmhouse flooded on a regular basis.

·         He asked Members to consider what would happen if the proposal was approved and failed to be a commercial success. He pleaded that Members of the Committee refuse the application.

Member Questions to Objectors

Councillor Richard Crumly asked if Mr Caiger-Smith was aware if any farming activity had taken place at the site in the past. Mr Caiger-Smith confirmed that his family had lived at Shalford Farmhouse for 53 years and he had never known it to be used as a functioning farm. The Dutch barn had been used as an overflow for animals, which were unwell. Currently it was being used as a caravan rental business which generated low traffic movements.

Councillor Law noted through viewing the site history that a change of use had been approved in 1989 for container storage, which in his mind would suggest lorries had travelled to and from the site. Mr Caiger-Smith stated that he did not recall such a use but was not qualified to comment.

Applicant / Agent representation

Mr Josh Dugdale and Mr Steven Smallman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Dugdale was commenting as a custodian of Wasing Estate and stated that without the funding from weddings the estate would not be viable.

·         There were exciting plans for the future of the estate, which supported diversification and organic farming.

·         The organic farm would provide local produce and a sustainable method of providing food. It was not possible to move the sustainable assets to urban locations.

·         31 new jobs would be created if the application was approved.

·         West Berkshire Council’s Core Strategy supported that opportunities for diversification should be encouraged, including farm diversification.

·         The proposal would make use of existing buildings. The state of the farm building was currently poor and the site was used as a car park.

·         No objections to the application had been received from technical consultants except for Highways. A travel plan had been proposed with a shuttle bus included. This would service local towns and villages, picking up guests and staff. The shuttle bus would also solve the issue of younger members of staff being able to get to work.

·         The application was a solution to improve sustainability incorporating a low carbon future.

Members Questions to Applicant / Agent

Councillor Law noted one of the comments included within the public representations stated that there were other sites at Wasing Estate available for the use proposed and he asked Mr Dugdale to comment on this. Mr Dugdale stated that there was not another location on the site that would be sustainable. A single site would make the project extremely challenging and expensive.

Councillor Chopping queried to what extent the application went in supporting the current wedding facilities and Mr Dugdale confirmed that it was very much supportive. He commented that a reduction was being seen in the number of people getting married, so in order to attract more people to Wasing Estate, innovative ideas were required. The proposal would aggregate services in one place, which would be available by appointment only. Councillor Chopping noted that the proposal was largely in support of the current wedding business but not completely. Mr Dugdale confirmed that it would largely support the wedding business as well as the organic farm.

Councillor Chopping asked how many wedding the business currently catered for. Mr Dugdale stated that in one year 160 weddings had been catered for at Wasing and in 2018/19 this had reduced to 125. A reduction in people getting married was not only affecting Wasing Estate but also other wedding venues across the country.

Councillor Chopping asked if the application was approved if it would affect the wedding business and Mr Dugdale confirmed that it would. The number of wedding venues was increasing however people’s habits regarding getting married were changing and therefore innovation was required. The organic farm would provide an ethical way to provide for weddings.

Councillor Bridgman asked where guests to Wasing Estate were currently staying. Mr Dugdale confirmed that there were 26 bedrooms available on the site and as a wedding venue 146 people could be catered for. This could result in 30 to 40 car journeys for a large wedding. Councillor Bridgman further asked where guests were staying if not at Wasing and Mr Dugdale commented that many used the Regency Park Hotel in Thatcham. Councillor Bridgman raised questions about viability and that there would actually be an increase in the number of guests staying at the Estate and travelling to weddings and Mr Dugdale reported that in the future there might be fewer weddings but larger in size. It was hoped that steps could be taken towards managing the whole process.

Councillor Bridgman referred to paragraph 6.1.4 of the report, which stated that a sequential test must be submitted. Mr Steven Smallman stated that on the 3^rd December 2018 the Planning Officer had emailed the applicant to say that in the interest of sustaining the rural economy a sequential test was not required. Mr Smallman disagreed with the statement within the report that it was a major development. A major development was classed as a development that was an increase of more than 1000 square metres, which the application would not exceed. Regarding the location of the site, Mr Smallman commented that the proposal would not succeed if it was located elsewhere and therefore in his view there was no other suitable site.

Councillor Law felt that the proposal was very complicated and queried the restaurant, yoga facility and cooking school. Mr Dugdale reported that the proposal was based on aggregation and these aspects would make the business stronger economically. Councillor Law noted therefore that not all aspects of the proposal were designed to support weddings and had been added on to help make the project viable. Mr Dugdale reported that produce from the farm would be used for weddings. The aim was to make the business stronger.

Regarding highway issues, Councillor Webster observed that the wedding business would receive ‘one off’ custom however other aspects proposed would rely on repeat business. Mr Dugdale confirmed that this was correct.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked what the pumping station on the plan was for. Mr Smallman confirmed that this maintained and controlled ground water levels but was only used in certain circumstances.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Dominic Boeck in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had lived in the suburbs of West Berkshire along with rural areas and the communities in these areas were very different.

·         He had lived in Brimpton for five years and commented on the precarious nature of rural areas. Over the years traditional jobs had been lost; fewer young families could afford to live in the countryside because of limited affordable housing and young people often moved away. There was often little participation in local society.

·         Help needed to be given to rural communities and if too much effort was placed on resisting change, then this option would fade away.

·         There was a good network of footpaths that surrounded Shalford Farm. Councillor Boeck stated that he could walk 90% of the distance from his house to Shalford Farm using footpaths.

·         He noted comments regarding bus services. There was a bus stop outside the Farmhouse however there were no longer any buses due to a decision taken by the Council to reduce bus services. The site was now being classed as unsustainable because there was not a bus service nearby.

·         The development, if approved, would build amenities and provide jobs and in his view this type of proposal should be supported by the Committee.

There were no questions raised by Members.

Member Questions to Officers 

Councillor Chopping referred back to comments concerning the sequential test and that the applicant had been informed that this did not need to be carried out. The figures under section 5.3 of the report came to just under 800 square metres, which was less than half of the figure (1640m2) calculated by the Planning Officer upon making their conclusion that it was a major development.

Mr Butler confirmed that he was the Officer that emailed the applicant on the 3^rd December 2018 saying that a sequential test was not required. NPPF paragraph 88 stated that a sequential test did not need to be applied to a small scale rural development up to 1000m2 however the total gross of the proposal was 1640m2. There would be a net increase of 686m2 which meant that the development would be classed as minor.  However, Mr Butler added that it was not just floor space that had to be taken into consideration but the intensity of the use proposed and this point had led to him changing his mind regarding the requirement for a sequential test.

Mr Butler commented that it was possible that if refused the decision could be appealed against and he stated that he would be happy to defend the decision if necessary based on the second reason for refusal. He felt that the development was major when considered in a rural context.

Councillor Chopping queried the figures in section 5.3, where floor space totalled just under 800m2 however, under section 6.1.4 of the report the total floor space was detailed at 1640m2. Councillor Chopping expected that the difference in figures was because there was no figure attributable to guest accommodation (14 rooms) in section 5.3.

Councillor Chopping noted that the site was an old farmyard and queried if could be used again as this in the future. David Pearson confirmed that the site could revert to agricultural use in the future without planning permission.

Councillor Webster noted that paragraph 82 of the NPPF included other industries besides those noted in the report. Mr Butler confirmed that the NPPF also set out that development should only take place in suitable sustainable locations.

Councillor Metcalfe referred to highways issues. He stated that the site was not in the AONB and therefore could potentially be used for housing. He added that in relation to Rosebourne a number of issues had been raised regarding how the Wasing Estate was different including access and that Rosebourne had a car park that would cater for 200 cars. Councillor Metcalfe noted that the road from Wasing Estate from the farm shop was a large two width road and therefore he could not understand why there was concern regarding this aspect. When exiting the site at the site visit he had noted that there was no visibility splay due to the barn and he asked for the Highways Officer to comment on this point.

Gareth Dowding confirmed that the A340 from Rosebourne was a two carriageway road however, there was no footpath once past Aldermaston School and therefore it could not be considered sustainable for anything other than vehicles. Regarding cyclists, there would be nowhere where they could safely stop. Regarding the visibility splay, Mr Dowding was unable to comment as he had not looked at the site in that level of depth at this stage, but if the application was approved then recommendations would have to be included which would set out the required sight lines.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the matter of the sequential test. He noted that different parts of the operation could not be located elsewhere because they were integral to the wedding business. David Pearson noted comments that the uses proposed would supplement the wedding business however, there was nothing to say that this would remain the case. It was not good practise not to carry out a sequential test and if the applicant had wished to undertake a test then more time would have been granted. If Members had doubts regarding whether a sequential test needed to be applied then one option would be to defer the application.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the first reason for refusal which included increased traffic and the lack of pedestrian or bus routes. He noted that the point made on behalf of the applicant was that the proposal would go some way in reducing traffic as visitors would not have to travel so far to access other services.

Councillor Bridgman noted that there was the yoga centre, restaurant and other outlets that could be sold onto third parties at any time as they would have nothing to do with Wasing Estate. As all the businesses would operate differently, in his view traffic levels would increase.

Councillor Webster asked if the Highways Officer’s concerns went beyond unacceptable and Gareth Dowding stated that this was difficult to confirm as he did not personally assess the site. It was important to note that there would be 30 full time equivalent posts and therefore could be made up of part time staff resulting in further traffic movements.

David Pearson referred to the points made by the Ward Member concerning diversification and stated that rural diversification in the countryside was never straight forward. The NPPF stated that the three strands of sustainability should be considered including Social, Economic and Environmental issues. The intensity of the application then had to be assessed. The response regarding the sequential test, in Officers’ view, was not acceptable. Members needed to consider all areas of sustainability when deciding whether to approve the application.

Debate

Councillor Alan Law acknowledged points that had been raised regarding rural and farm diversity. At the site visit Members had been concerned regarding the height of the Dutch barn and Councillor Law stated that he had left the site with a feeling of overdevelopment. The applicant had stated that aspects of the site were required to support the wedding business and other aspects were completely separate but were required to support the viability of the site. Councillor Law was of the view that many visitors would access the site from the A4. Councillor Law had needed to stop twice when travelling to the site visit due to oncoming vehicles and there not being enough space for them to pass. He agreed that the site required development however, it needed to be more sympathetic to the local area. Therefore Councillor Law proposed that Members support the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. Councillor Quentin Webb seconded the proposal by Councillor Law.

Councillor Emma Webster stated that the applicant needed to be mindful that if they were seeking rural diversification, the nature of the wedding business meant that guests would only visit once. The restaurant on the other hand would be visited more frequently and repeat business was being relied upon there would therefore be reliance on visitors returning.

Councillor Webster stated that section 84 of the NPPF supported development that encouraged strong competitive communities as long as the impact was not unacceptably high. Councillor Webster recalled that Mr Dowding had not stated that the impact on the highway was unacceptable. Councillor Webster was concerned that if local areas were not supported then local facilities would close. Councillor Webster had given a lot of thought to the economic issues relating to the development and she felt that the overbearing aspect would have been included within the reasons for refusal if it was at a level that was not acceptable.

Councillor Marigold Jaques noted that the site was a brownfield site within the countryside and therefore required some kind of development. Councillor Jaques was of the view that the proposal was perhaps too diverse for the site and location and she was concerned about the increase in traffic that would be caused. Councillor Jaques expressed that she would support development of the site, but it would need to be a proposal that was more sympathetic to the local area. 

Councillor Crumly was of the view that there was no issue with the access to the site. The site had once been a working farm and could now be classed as a bit of a ‘dump’. He felt that the application was credible and did not think that the traffic issue was a reason to refuse the application. Councillor Crumly therefore stated that he was in support of the application.

Councillor Webb stated that he supported the points that had been raised by Councillor Law and he felt that the proposal was overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would include another large barn being built alongside the existing barn and listed building. He did not feel that the area was easy to access.

Councillor Webster noted the reference to overdevelopment of the site and asked Planning Officers if the application was refused on this reason, if the decision would stand at appeal. David Pearson stated that if Members were minded to refuse the application because they felt it would cause overdevelopment then he was confident that a case could be put together on this point. Councillor Webster was concerned that the issue of overdevelopment was not mentioned in the report and Mr Pearson commented that he did not view this as an issue. Members had sought advice and were free to form their own opinions regarding the application.

Councillor Chopping stated that the buildings were already on the site and the proposal would put them to use. He did not agreed with the point about the sequential test or the points raised by the Highways Officer as he had never had an issue with the roads in question. He was however, inclined to agree with comments made by Members regarding overdevelopment of the site and would rather see an application smaller in scale that would be of benefit to the site and local community.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe stated that he believed in rural economy and diversification and the proposal included the development of what was a brownfield site. In light of concerns raised by Members concerning the overdevelopment of the site Councillor Metcalfe asked if the applicant could be provided with the opportunity to withdraw their application rather than it be refused.

Councillor Law reminded the Committee that he had formed a proposal that had been seconded by Councillor Webb.

David Pearson advised that that if the applicant was minded to withdraw and an email was received to this effect before a formal resolution had been formed then this would have to be accepted.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Law and seconded by Councillor Webb to refuse planning permission.

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

1.     The proposal will increase traffic in a rural location that has no pedestrian or bus routes and is linked by rural roads where at times cycling can be difficult.  The location of the site will increase traffic where the mode of travel can only be the private car.  The proposal is therefore unsustainable and is therefore contrary to Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire District Core Strategy 2006 to 2026 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.  It is also contrary to the advice in the LTP2 of 2011 to 2026 for West Berkshire.  It is accordingly unacceptable.

 

2.     The applicant has failed to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposed town centre uses of retail and leisure in this location is acceptable under the remit of the sequential test, as set out in the NPPF and the advice in policy CS11 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026.  Accordingly the application is unacceptable given the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate this test, as set out in para 90 of the NPPF.

 

3.     The application site comprises a small group of redundant agricultural buildings in a quiet rural location outside any defined settlement boundary. Low key commercial uses currently occupy the site. These have little impact on the present tranquil nature of the locality. The Council is concerned that the development, with the greater range and mix of more intensive commercial uses, will create activity over a much wider period into the evenings and weekends, so resulting in an unacceptable increase in both built form and activity on the site, which will comprise an overdevelopment of the application site, having regard to the scale, massing and nature of the proposed new Dutch Barn with associated remodelling of the other buildings and redevelopment noted. Given the tranquil rural nature of the surrounding area, it is considered that the nature and intensity of the proposed commercial uses will cause harm to the vicinity, which is considered to be clearly contrary to policies ADPP1, [4th paragraph] policy ADPP6 - environment – bullet point 2, and policy CS19 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026. It is accordingly unacceptable.