Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/01171/FULD in respect of the demolition, salvage and rebuild of the existing buildings to create three live-work units together with access, landscaping and associated works.

Mr David Pearson introduced the report to Members’ of the Committee, which recommended refusal, and ran through the key points. The item had been called in by the Ward Member as it had been recommended for refusal, due to expressed concerns by local residents and Brimpton Parish Council concerning the condition of the existing buildings.

Regarding the planning history of the site, there was extant consent on the site for conversion of the existing buildings for mixed use including residential and storage. An application for conversion with few alterations to the buildings had been received and supported by Planning Officers however, subsequently the agent had revised their plans and had submitted an application for the demolition and redevelopment of the site and an application had been refused in 2018.  The current application was an almost identical scheme to the one refused in 2018 and objections had been received from Ecology and Planning Policy.

Mr Pearson referred to the update sheet, which detailed that Officers had tried to persuade the applicant to provide an updated ecology report however, the applicant had suggested that the application be accepted in principle and then the ecology report would be provided afterwards. Officers’ did not agree that this was an acceptable way forward.

Mr Pearson stated that the principle of the development was unacceptable and contrary to the development plan. An additional reason for refusal included the failure to provide an up to date report on the Brown Long Eared Bats inhabiting on the site. If approved Mr Pearson stated that the application would have to be referenced up to the District Planning Committee for final decision due to the strategic impact approval, which was clearly contrary to development plan policy, would have on the application of the relevant issues involved across the district.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Mary Cowdery, Parish Council representative, and Mr Sean Bates (applicant) and Mr Steven Smallman (agent), addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Ms Cowdery in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Ms Cowdery was representing Brimpton Parish Council, which was in support of the application.

·         The site had been a brownfield site since 1897 and farm buildings had been present on the site since this time to her knowledge.

·         The current buildings had been present on the site since 1968 and therefore were not in the best condition. 

·         The last application for conversion had been submitted in 2017 however, upon further investigation the buildings had been found to be unfit for conversion.

·         The current application would bring the site up to date and would ensure it complied with necessary building regulations.

·         Planning Policy C1 concerned settlements in the countryside and used the words ‘close knit’ cluster of dwellings as a reason to accept development in the countryside, which was outside of the settlement boundary. In Ms Cowdery’s opinion this site met the criteria of this policy.

·         The plot sizes proposed as part of the application were similar to adjacent plots and not out of keeping with the nearby area and therefore in the Parish Council’s view met relevant criteria of Policy C1.

·         The Parish Council did not believe this part of Brimpton Common to be in the countryside but rather part of a community.

·         Policy C9 stated that there would be a shortage of B1 floor space up until 2026 and therefore continued support for new businesses was required.

·         It had been confirmed that Brown Long Eared Bats were present on the site. Ms Cowdery confirmed that there was a small wooded area less than 500 metres from the site and therefore the bats would adapt.

·         There were 232 households in Brimpton and 63% had responded to a recent questionnaire about living in the area. 40% of those responding were retired; 29% worked from home; 66% wanted to see more houses in the parish and 71% wanted new houses built in the area to be smaller. Many had also expressed support for the change of use of existing buildings.

·         The proposal would tidy up a derelict site and would provide much needed live/work units. It would increase housing on Brimpton Common.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Graham Pask referred to ten houses in a row near to the site and asked if the site was located in the middle of these houses. Ms Cowdery confirmed that this was not the case.

Councillor Joanne Stewart had noted at the site visit that there had been a need to ensure the access was clear to ensure another building could be accessed and queried what the purpose of this building was. Ms Cowdery confirmed that the building was owned by AWE to house equipment for measuring earthquakes.

The Chairman noted that Ms Cowdery had stated that the buildings were no longer fit for conversion. He referred to section 9.5 of the report which referred to a structural survey report, which had been used as evidence for 17/01857FULD to prove that the existing buildings were structurally sound and capable of conversion. The Chairman queried what had changed. Ms Cowdery suggested that the Chairman direct this question the applicant.

Supporter Representations:

Mr Sean Bates and Mr Steven Smallman confirmed that they were also the applicant and agent (respectively) for the application. In addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Smallman reiterated that there was already extant planning permission on the site and therefore informed the Committee of the reasons for submitting another application.

·         It was felt that the option to rebuild provided a much better scheme. The internal quality of the build would be better and more sustainable. Carbon emissions from the development would be reduced by a third. This was why a salvage and redevelopment scheme had been chosen.

·         Mr Smallman commented that even a conversion scheme required compromise. Mr Smallman stated that it was not that the buildings were not sound but rather that to convert them would cause a significant compromise.

·         There were planning policies around replacement dwellings to limit the impact on the countryside and in his view this was what the scheme achieved.

·         A balance needed to be sought that took planning considerations into account along with other factors such as improved energy efficiency and a reduced carbon footprint. Balance and common sense needed to be applied when considering the application.

·         The land had been previously development and no objections to the proposal had been received from residents. The Parish Council were in support of the application.

·         Regarding ecology, normally Phase 1 could be updated however, in this case it could not. In order to update Phase 1, it would take three months to update the surveys and therefore the applicant wished to know if the proposal could be agreed in principle before taking this step.

·         Blewburton Ltd had conducted an energy efficiency survey and compared the rebuild and conversion options.

Member Questions to the Supporters:

Councillor Pask noted that the rebuild option had been chosen due to it being more sustainable and energy efficient and queried why this could not be achieved with a conversion. Mr Bates confirmed that it could not be achieved due to economic reasons and technicalities. He was disappointed that the Planning Officer had been so dismissive of the application as they were not experts in the field.

The Chairman asked Mr Bates to confirm if a conversion could not be achieved because of technical or economic reasons and Mr Bates confirmed that both reasons applied. The economics were different for both options and a conversion would be worth less than a rebuild to a higher standard. The Chairman asked if the conversion scheme could be revised to produce the same standard as the rebuild scheme and Mr Bates did not think that it could.

Councillor Alan Macro struggled to see how the bat population on the site would be protected if the current buildings were knocked down. Mr Bates stated that they had been asked to submit a short update to the previous ecology report but refused. Nine investigations would be required to produce a new report, which would take until the end of August and if a solution could not be found then development would not commence. Mr Smallman stated that a mitigation scheme could be put in place. Councillor Macro asked for clarification that if the bats could not be protected then the development would not be able to go ahead and Mr Smallman stated that a process would need to take place first including nine surveys to determine this.

Councillor Geoff Mayes presumed that there would be an intention to use some of the old tiles for the rebuild if the application was approved. Mr Bates expected that there would be enough materials from the three current buildings to build two new ones. Every effort would be made to re-use materials and what could not be used would be recycled in other ways.

The Chairman highlighted that a report from 2017 stated that the current buildings were structurally sound. He asked the applicant to confirm if this was still the case and if the reason for opting for a rebuild was because it was considered a better solution. Mr Bates confirmed that this was correct.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Cottam was concerned that a precedent had already been set by giving permission to use the site. Mr Pearson confirmed that there were a number of exceptions with regards to development outside of settlement boundaries, including agricultural buildings and conversions. All other residential developments outside of the settlement boundaries were subject to the development plan. Permission for conversion to residential use had been given and this did not set a precedent for development which fell outside of that covered in the specified exceptions.

The Chairman stated that he had been the Portfolio Holder for Planning when the Development Plan Documents had been agreed. The relevant policies had been deliberately changed to remove the previously allowed option that allowed redundant rural buildings to be replaced with new dwellings.

Councillor Macro asked if the application submitted in 2018 had been any different to the one being considered. Mr Pearson stated that they were almost identical and the former application was refused under de-delegated powers.

Debate:

Councillor Pask stated he had spoken with the Ward Member, Councillor Dominic Boeck, who had supported the application and agreed with the comments from the Parish Council. Councillor Pask expressed however, that he did not. He highlighted that as a planning committee, Members’ were required to interpret policies but not change them. He was proud to be part of a plan led authority. Although a rebuild would look the same, it was contrary to the policies which had been put in place. Brimpton was not a defined settlement and therefore he supported the view of Officers and proposed the Members support the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Macro, who was concerned that it would be difficult to protect bat species on the site if a salvage and rebuild scheme was approved.

The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Pask, seconded by Councillor Macro. 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:

1.  The application site is located outside of the defined settlement boundary and within the open countryside as defined under Policy ADPP1 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy C1 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocation Development Plan Document (2006-2026) 2017. The site comprises three buildings that have an approved light industrial (Class B1c) use and ancillary storage buildings. The proposed works are for the demolition and redevelopment of the three light industrial buildings on the existing site to form dwellings and the conversion of the existing storage units into office accommodation to form a mixed residential and associated office use of the site. The proposed works are situated in a location with poor access to local services, amenities and public transport and would result in the development of three new dwellings on a site in the countryside, contrary to the provisions of Policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2017 which states that there shall be a presumption against new residential development outside of the settlement boundaries defined earlier in the policy.         

   The housing supply policies of the statutory development plan provide an up-to-date framework for the determination of housing applications within West Berkshire, and the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The application conflicts with the housing supply policies - Policies ADPP1, ADPP6 and CS1 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026. The proposal does not fall within any of the defined exceptions to the presumption against new residential development outside of the settlement boundaries, where only appropriate limited development is allowed. In this case the housing supply policies of the development plan attract compelling weight, and the modest benefits of the proposal do not outweigh this conflict with policy.

2.     Due to the lack of an up-to-date Ecological Report and Bat Survey Report, it is not possible to accurately (and with any level of certainty) assess that the impact on identified Brown Long Eared bate (Plecotus auritus) and the Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrelles) would be at the same level as stated in the out-of-date (September 2016) reports and that the roosts are still day roosts. As such, the Council cannot undertake its duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity as required by natural Environment and Rural Communities Act of 2006. The proposal scheme is also contrary to Core Strategy policy CS17.

3.     The proposed development of three dwellings and associated work units would not meet any identified need for additional housing or business units in the countryside or provide any significant benefit to the local rural economy such as would justify an exception to policy on development in the countryside. No sequential test has been submitted to prove a need for a town centre use in the countryside. The above is contrary to the roles of sustainable development defined in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and the requirements of Policy ADPP1 and CS1 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and C1 of the Housing Sites Allocation DPD (2006-2026) 2017, which state that only appropriate limited development in the countryside will be allowed, focused on addressing identified needs and maintaining a strong rural economy.