To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 19/02850/FULMAJ, Land Adjacent To Elton Farm, Weston, Welford

Proposal:

Proposed conversion and replacement of agricultural buildings to residential use, including parking, landscaping and associated works, plus the construction of one new-build dwelling.

 

Location:

Land Adjacent To Elton Farm, Weston

Newbury, RG20 8JG.

 

Applicant:

Mr J Puxley and Marbus Developments Ltd.

 

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION.

 

Minutes:

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. They had been present when the application was discussed, but would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(All Councillors, apart from Councillor Adrian Abbs, declared a personal interest in Agenda Item (4)2 by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they 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 19/02850/FULMAJ in respect of the approval of the proposed conversion and replacement of agricultural buildings to residential use, including parking, landscaping and associated works, plus the construction of one new-build dwelling

2.     Masie Masiiwa introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unacceptable and a conditional approval was unjustifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission and advised that if Members were minded to approve the application in its current form, the Development Control Manager would refer it to District Planning Committee.

3.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation. He noted that no highway issues had been raised in relation to the application, but asked the highways officer if he wished to comment. Paul Goddard confirmed that the Highway Authority had no objections, since traffic levels would be similar or even reduced compared to the current use, with fewer large agricultural vehicles using Elton Lane. He confirmed that the proposed highway layout and parking arrangements were acceptable.

4.     As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

5.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from Mr David Hunt (Chairman) Welford Parish Council, Kirsteen Roberts and local residents, objectors, and Mr J Puxley and Marbus Developments Ltd, applicant and agent.

6.     Written submissions were read out by the Clerk to the Committee:

Parish Representation

The written submission of Welford Parish Council from David Hunt (Chairman) was read out as follows:

As Chairman of Welford Parish Council I am writing on their behalf in strongly supporting the planning application. Throughout the planning process the council have been directly involved in discussions and we see this proposal as a satisfactory outcome for all stakeholders.

On 20th June 2018 a site visit was arranged for Parish Councillors to learn of a proposal for the conversion of four agricultural buildings to residential use. We reminded the agent (Savills) that plans for a previous nearby development of ten new houses had been required to be altered so that effluent was not discharged into the River Lambourn but was connected to the main sewer in Weston.

With this in mind the Parish Council were keen not to repeat the same scenario with the four houses on this planning application. At a Parish Council meeting on 4th December 2018 the Council voted “No Objection” to the planning application (18/01090/FULD) subject to there being a satisfactory and agreed method of sewage treatment which did not involve any effluent being discharged into the River Lambourn.

The developer proposed a private sewage package treatment plant (STP) for each dwelling. At this stage Natural England were satisfied that the proposed strategy would not result in harm to the sensitive SSSI. The Environment Agency did not respond.

The planning application was approved by the District Council Planning. Committee at a meeting on 12th December 2018.

Following concerns raised by local residents and the Parish Council it became clear that the proposed treatment method did not address the potential for the influx of phosphates. However, at this stage, connection to the village main sewage system was not considered financially viable.

The developer has now addressed the issue and has submitted the plan that has been proposed. The addition of two extra dwellings will provide funding for a pipe to be drilled under the River Lambourn allowing connection to the main sewer. This satisfies the conditions requested by the Parish Council, thereby protecting the Eco structure, wildlife and the environment of this ancient chalk stream. At a Parish Council Meeting on 16th October the Council unanimously supported the proposal. This decision was confirmed by a site visit on 3rd November at which detailed plans were displayed.

We are aware that the proposal requires extra building on a small plot of land that is not brownfield land and is therefore not within West Berkshire planning policy. However, we believe that an exception should be made on this occasion since the advantages far outweigh other considerations.

The Council consider that the new buildings are very attractive and in keeping with the rural landscape. The proposal completely removes unsightly outbuildings and creates a pleasant, unified development. We see this as a significant improvement to the environment. We look forward to seeing a satisfactory outcome to this proposal.

Supporter Representation

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, as multiple parties had made written submissions, an officer has provided a summary of the issues raised. The full submissions were made available to the Members of the Committee, and have been published alongside the Agenda for this meeting.

The written submission from Kirsteen Roberts on behalf of local residents was read out as follows:

Villagers of Weston want me to write in support of the proposed development as they are passionate about protecting the River Lambourn.

As you know it is one of only four rare chalk streams of its kind in the world. We can’t make any more and as such it is afforded the highest protection as an SAC. The existing approved scheme for this development will see the use of Klargesters with treated sewage running into drainage fields. It is a fact that Klargesters and drainage fields do not extract phosphates which are extremely harmful to the river. Ultimately, like the plight of the Whorl snail supposedly protected by the drainage fields created on the Newbury Bypass, the drainage fields will become saturated due to proximity of the water table and phosphates will flow into the river causing catastrophe.

Experts (see Peter Evans scientific evidence) confirm that the existing previously approved scheme will not adequately protect this vulnerable chalk stream. Natural England expressed their concerns to this effect when commenting on the extant approval that sewage should go to the mains as the preferred choice. Nothing has changed from that stance taken by NE and now a viable scheme has been proposed to allow this to happen.

The River Lambourn is already a failing river because of the leaching of phosphates from years of agricultural use. The existing approved scheme would ultimately see more phosphates in the river. ALL planning decisions should ensure that no phosphates are allowed to enter the river.

These new proposals would see the sewage go to the mains 1.3 km away, where more phosphates would be extracted. This would be a win win situation. A higher quality development is delivered, the river is protected from any increase in phosphate levels both now and more so in the future as technology improves. There will also be a REDUCTION as two existing houses will be connected to the mains sewage system as part of this proposal. The concession is that a one off exception would need to be made to planning guidance with one additional house built on the greenfield.

Surely this is justification enough to secure the long lasting protection of such an important river. Don’t we all owe it as custodians of our environment to make a one off exception without setting a precedent?

There is extensive support on Facebook, social media with 1105 signing the online petition and huge support from local residents, the wider community and further afield with 65 writing letters of support to the council.

The approved development does not protect the River Lambourn. The proposed one does. We have one chance to do the right thing before the approved scheme is fully implemented at which point there is no going back!

Please support these new proposals. The River Lambourn is worth making an exception for. SAC chalk streams are much rarer than greenbelt and this river is more at risk than the greenbelt which these guidelines were designed to protect.

Applicant and Agent Representation

The written submission of Mr J Puxley and Marbus Developments Ltd was read out as follows:

The original Planning Permission (18/01090/FULD) was granted on 13.12.2018 for the conversion of four barns and approved foul drainage to individual Sewage Treatment Plants.

Marbus Developments became involved after this date.

On 17.07.2019 Welford Parish Council met and discussed the consented scheme, its foul sewage treatment and the River Lambourn. The local community highlighted their concerns that individual Sewage Treatment Plants may cause phosphate damage to the river. The overwhelming view at that meeting was that a connection to the main Thames Water sewer would be a preferable solution and we were asked to consider how this could be achieved. The complications and enormous costs involved were outlined. However, we agreed to investigate potential solutions.

During Summer/Autumn 2019 we worked hard with District Councillors, Consultants and Architects to find a viable solution. Looking at the approved scheme, we felt the architectural details and design could be improved along with the constructing one additional dwelling (H5) to provide funding for the sewer connection. To provide further betterment both Elton Farmhouse and Cottage will be connected to the main sewer.

We held an open meeting on site on 3.11.2019 and invited all interested parties to attend to view and discuss the revised scheme. Subsequently minor alterations were made as a result of comments and feedback.

The Thames Water Mains sewage pipework is located approximately 350m away. A connection to this involves constructing a package pumping station on site. The installation, by means of a remote mole, a 90mm pipe under the adjacent water meadows and River Lambourn to a connection point in Weston. This includes third party land and we have acquired consent for this should planning be granted.

A Planning Viability Assessment Report has been submitted by Stuart Larkin Associates. This illustrates the value in the amended scheme will cover the main sewer connection costs, but a contribution to Social Housing would make the revised scheme unviable.

With regard to ecology: Work has started on Barn H1 under the approved permission. Ecologist Simon Pidgeon of Quantock Ecology is overseeing this work. We’ve an updated Bat Survey and have relevant EPS License. The barns we will be converting showed no evidence of protected and notable species when last surveyed. On 19.05.2020 Quantock Ecology undertook another full site Habitat Survey and we will follow all guidance and recommendations that come from that.

We appreciate the submitted scheme (19/02850/FULMAJ) goes against normal planning policy. However, we hope you can see this proposal – which has been carefully designed with input from the local community – provides buildings that offer a more attractive finished scheme to enhance the wonderful farmyard location without overdeveloping the site; has full support and backing from the Parish Council and local residents; has over 68 letters of support; and allows for a new sewer connection to the Thames Water mains in Weston Village which provides the best outcome for the river.

This is a rare example of localism in action - We hope you will be able to give it your support.

Ward Member Representation

7.     Councillor Claire Rowles declared an interest as she lived next to the River Lambourn, albeit in the next village.

8.     Councillors James Cole and Claire Rowles in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·           Councillor James Cole noted that this would be a difficult decision for the Committee. In reaching a decision, Members would need to weigh up environmental benefits against breaching planning policy, which was there to protect the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·           The issue of phosphates entering the River Lambourn had not been considered as part of the previous planning application 2018, which was passed unanimously. It was simply not a subject brought to the attention of the Committee.

·           Natural England had previously proposed that sewage be piped, but subsequently backtracked. There was no opposition from the Environment Agency.

·           During 2019, local public opinion objected to the phosphates that the Klargesters would allow to enter the watercourse. This led to a revision of the application in discussion with Members and the local community, which was now brought before you.

·           Councillor Rowles described that the River Lambourn was a unique chalk stream designated as a Site of Special scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA) and a tributary of the river Kennet.

·           Action for River Kennet considered that more than 350 sceptic tanks in the Lambourn Valley were at high risk of polluting the river, with a further 140 considered to be at moderate risk. They believed therefore that the planning system should not be consenting to any more sceptic tanks or package treatment plants in the Lambourn Valley.

·           Klargesters dealt with the bulk of the effluent, with the remainder soaking into a drainage field. Over time, the remaining substance, with high levels of phosphates, would flow down into the river.

·           Both Ward Members believed that the need to protect the Rivers Lambourn and Kennet far outweighed any breaches of planning policy.

·           Additionally, there was the added benefit that Elton Farmhouse and cottage would be added to the mains sewage, thereby protecting the River Lambourn even further.

·           Councillor James Cole continued by addressing specific concerns raised by officers. There would have to be some demolition, for example H1 was an asbestos barn. However, he felt that planners might have overstated the point. The original permission identified the barns as structurally sound for conversion. The developer wanted to rebuild using original materials, such as slate, timber and lime in the mortar, to sympathetically recreate the farmyard feel. This would reduce impact and preserve the view from the public footpath.

·           Whilst some land would be changed from agricultural to residential use, this was a practical use for a bit of scrubby land that included the cottages old septic tank and garage.

·           The applicant was happy to look again at surface water drainage arrangements if approval were granted. However, the groundwater levels quoted, validated the need for a pipeline approach and mains sewerage was recommended by the drainage expert.

·           An Ecology Report had been submitted on 20 May 2020.

·           The overall built footprint of the redeveloped properties would be less than the current farm buildings, but would be more with the new house and garages.

·           The viability report confirmed that the developer would be £91,000 worse off under the new proposal, which explained the lack of affordable housing.

·           Councillor Rowles explained that public support was overwhelming for this application. Over 80 letters had been received from residents, Welford and Boxford Parish Councils, Action for the River Kennet, as well as over 1,000 signature petition.

·           The development would only result in one new dwelling not on a brownfield site.

·           The ward Members therefore asked Members to support this application as an ‘exception’ site to protect the River Lambourn.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

9.     Councillor Tony Vickers highlighted that the previous determination had been taken in the absence of crucial information on phosphates. He asked whether the applicants had investigated other means to mitigate the phosphates, as the current proposal would require numerous derogations from local plan policies. Councillor James Cole responded that drainage fields were effective for about a year, after which time contamination of groundwater would occur. He suggested that a reed bed had been considered, but the necessary land, odour and maintenance made this impractical. He reiterated that mains sewage was the only option, as it had much better filtration, and would address residents’ concerns.

10.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked about the impact of the proposal on the appearance of the farmyard from the public footpath. Councillor James Cole indicated that the existing buildings were of poor quality with tin shacks and asbestos roofs. The applicant was planning to use traditional materials, which would be more sympathetic than those used in neighbouring Teekay Farm. Councillor Rowles, clarified that several of the buildings would be restored rather than demolished, retaining the farmyard feel.

11.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked for confirmation that the developer would be £91,000 worse off with or without the extra house. Councillor James Cole confirmed that it was a net result for the application. He observed that the figures had not been validated by the council. He suggested that the applicant wanted to create a showpiece development. The developer would still make a profit, but the end result would be better.

12.  Councillor Hilary Cole enquired whether the applicant was a riparian owner for the River Lambourn downstream of the development. Councillor James Cole confirmed that he owned fishing rights for a downstream section that would be affected by contamination if Klargesters were used.

13.  Councillor Adrian Abbs requested information on the net reduction in phosphates due to the pig farm ceasing to operate. Councillor James Cole confirmed that the pig unit was old, and therefore some contaminants would inevitably have reached the river.

Questions to Officers

14.  Members were invited to ask questions of the officers. Councillor Benneyworth sought clarification as to which buildings would be demolished and which would be renovated. Masie Masiiwa confirmed that building H1 would be converted as per the previous application, but buildings H2, H3 and H4 would be demolished.

15.  Councillor Abbs reiterated his question about net benefits in terms of pollutants to officers. Masie Masiiwa confirmed that Natural England had viewed the previous proposal as a betterment. Gareth Ryman added that sewer connections were beneficial, but existing effluent would be released if construction occurred, with both the extant permission and the new proposal. SUDs proposed for run-off needed to be properly maintained to prevent problems. Jonathan Bowden highlighted issues with groundwater being periodically very high, so the developer was proposing shallow soakaways. However, groundwater in the recent period of flooding would have inundated the soakaways, so a better solution would be required. The site was also in a surface water flow path and so flood risk assessment would be required to protect residents from flood water coming from outside the site. Councillor Abbs reiterated that he wanted to know the difference between the impact of the farm and the approved development.

16.  Councillor Jeff Cant expressed concern about establishing a precedent in terms of opening the door to ad-hoc developments at farms not adjacent to existing developments. Masie Masiiwa indicated that the proposal was in conflict with a number of policies. One policy sought to retain the form and character of buildings in rural areas. He confirmed that should this development be allowed, it would set a precedent for replacing farm buildings with larger developments. It would also open the door to this applicant coming back with a revised scheme with more development.

17.  Councillor Howard Woollaston asked whether conditions had been considered in terms of the use of sympathetic materials and styles. Masie Masiiwa indicated that should members be minded to approve the application, then a condition could be attached regarding the materials to be reused. He suggested that the applicant would still need to import materials onto the site due to the size of the buildings proposed.

18.  Councillor Dennis Bennyworth sought clarification about H2 being demolished and highlighted that H3 had extant permission to be demolished and rebuilt. Masie Masiiwa reiterated that H1 was the only conversion and that the rest of the buildings would be demolished. Part of H3 would be rebuilt on the same footprint, but it would still need to be demolished.

Debate

19.  Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate by noting that the previous scheme was significantly different to the new one, which had more demolition and the construction of a new building. She expressed the opinion that the new proposal drove a coach and horses through a number of planning policies. She went on to highlight issues with scale, design, bulk and height that had been raised with the previously rejected application that applied equally to this proposal. She understood the issues around drainage, but these matters were just part of the determination. She suggested that the key issue was that the proposal was contrary to policy and highlighted the need to be consistent in determining applications.

20.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed to accept the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

21.  Councillor Vickers seconded the proposal.

22.  Councillor Vickers observed that he had walked through the farmyard and said that it was not of any design merit or importance, but he was concerned that the committee should not trash their policies in order to correct a mistake made in determining a previous application and suggested that this was the wrong solution.

23.  Councillor Abbs indicated that he had been impressed with the officer’s presentation. He continued that the plan, scale and location were out of kilter and while he would like to see a better solution for the sewage, this should not be at the expense of policy, so he supported refusal.

24.  Councillor Benneyworth did not agree with the proposal. He acknowledged that the proposal was contrary to policies, but highlighted the lack a policy on polluting chalk streams and suggested that this should take precedence over design considerations. He considered that the design was sympathetic to the historical farmyard setting.

25.  Councillor Cant did not want to set a precedent for redeveloping farmyards and supported the proposal.

26.  Councillor Culver welcomed the fact that the developer was happy to look at the issue again, but it raised concerns in terms of setting a number of precedents. She also expressed concerns in relation to affordable housing and ecology. She indicated that she could not support the application. She went on to ask whether there was anything that could be done to address the phosphates issue with the extant approval.

27.  Councillor Woollaston thought that the development was attractive and he was concerned about the impacts on the chalk stream, but he could not see how the committee could go against policy.

28.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Vickers to refuse planning permission. 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.     Principle of Housing in the Countryside Policies

The Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document's policy C4 provides guidance for the conversion of existing redundant buildings in the countryside to residential use. The policy indicates that the conversion of existing redundant buildings to residential use will be permitted subject to certain criteria.

The new dwelling H5 does not fall within the policy C1 criteria as it is located outside of any settlement boundary. The re-use and adaptation of existing rural buildings is supported by development plan polices but demolition and redevelopment is not. The redevelopment of buildings H2, H3, H4 do not fall within the set criteria for conversion of policy C4. The buildings are considered to be structurally sound for conversion as assessed and approved under planning permission 18/01090/FULD. Due to the proposed demolition and the level of additional built form, the development would result in the replacement of the buildings by new development rather than their conversion. Such redevelopment of rural buildings is not considered acceptable as it is inconsistent with national and local policies, and previous decisions by the Council with regard to similar proposals supported by the dismissal of subsequent planning appeals.

The proposed development is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy ADPP1, ADPP5, Policy C1, C3 and C4 (criteria (i),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi) and (vii)) of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

2.     Impact on the Character and appearance of the site and the AONB Landscape

The application site is located within the AONB, a statutory designation under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Section 82 confirms that the primary purpose of the AONB designation is conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a general duty on Local Planning Authorities to have regard to the objectives of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. The NPPF states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, which has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

The resultant new buildings would be significantly larger in terms of site coverage, design, appearance, scale and massing than the existing farm buildings significantly altering the rural character and appearance of the site and the wider AONB. In addition the proposed residential curtilages are overly large and represent an unacceptable level of intensification and encroachment of residential uses within the AONB countryside.

The redevelopment works include large glazing and new build will use materials and finishes appropriate with residential areas rather than a rural farmyard. The proposed garden sizes are overly large and indicate further encroachment of residential uses within the open AONB countryside through the change of use of agricultural land to residential uses. The extensive glazing would also prejudice the Council’s aim of protecting ‘dark skies’ within the AONB. The proposed development therefore fails to “conserve and enhance” the character of the AONB and will detract from the character and appearance of the historic farmyard which is also located within the AONB. Given that the site represents a traditional farmyard complex.

The proposed dwellings are not considered high quality design and would not be in keeping with the surrounding area or respect the established and historic form of development of development on the site and its building styles and materials. The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of the NPPF, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy and Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document

3.     Insufficient information to the impact on Biodiversity and Geodiversity on the site

The applicant has failed to submit updated ecological surveys despite requests by the Council’s ecologist. The ecologist states that an extended phase one habitat survey is required to be completed, and that this may lead to further surveys needing to be undertaken before determination of the application. In addition Natural England has requested additional information with regard to the latest drainage proposal to connect to the public sewer. The surveys under the previous application are now out of date.

Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to assess the ecological impact of the proposed demolition and redevelopment works to the buildings on site to residential use. There may be protected species on site in the adjacent River Lambourn SSSI which would be impacted upon by the proposed development. Government Circular 06/2005 sets statutory obligations within the Planning System which states that:

"It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision."

Given the above, the ecological matters would need to be resolved before determination. Due to this lack of information, the proposed development is contrary to the advice contained within the Conservation Regulations 2010, Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, NPPF, NERC Act 2006, Policy CS 17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2012 and criteria (vi) of Policy C4 of the Housing Site Allocation DPD.

4.     Planning obligation

The proposed development fails to provide appropriate provision of affordable housing, off-site mitigation, or a planning obligation. As such, the development fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS5 and CS6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and the Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations.

Supporting documents: