Agenda item

Proposal:	Full planning application for the conversion and redevelopment of existing land and buildings to create a mixed-use development comprising restaurant, estate farm shop, overnight accommodation, bakery, fermentary, cookery school and event space (local food production and ancillary education facility) and a biomass boiler together with associated works including the demolition of the existing garages and workshop building.
Location:	Land at Shalford Farm Brimpton.
Applicant:	Wasing Estates
Recommendation:	Delegated to the Head of Development and Planning to refuse planning permission.

 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00737/COMIND in respect of a full planning application for the conversion and redevelopment of existing land and buildings to create a mixed-use development comprising restaurant, estate farm shop, overnight accommodation, bakery, fermentary, cookery school and event space (local food production and ancillary education facility) and a biomass boiler together with associated works including the demolition of the existing garages and workshop building.

Mr Michael Butler, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The Development Control Manager had requested that this application be determined by Committee as the Eastern Area Planning Committee had refused the previous application for the site. The applicant had taken the decision to appeal but had advised that the appeal would be withdrawn if planning permission was granted for this revised scheme.

·         The Planning Officer recommendation was to refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined in the report. In summary, the scale and mix of commercial uses was considered more appropriate for town centre use and would create traffic concerns. Secondly, a sequential test had not been undertaken.

·         The Highways Officer objected and also recommended refusal as detailed in both the committee report and update report. This was on the basis that the high level of mixed commercial use on the site would generate an unacceptable level of private car traffic on rural roads which went contrary to extant policy in what was considered to be an unsustainable location. The Highways Officer also considered that regard should be had to the declared Climate Change Emergency.

·         Overdevelopment was added as a reason for refusal by Members for the previous application. Officers had not included it as a reason for refusing this application as the scheme had reduced in size.

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.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from Mr Paul Woodley, Chairman of Wasing Parish Meeting (adjoining parish), Mr John Beach, Ms Stephanie Ansell, Mr William Fugard, Ms Bryony Fugard and Ms Harriet Lees, supporters, and Mr Andrew Perkins, Wasing Estate - applicant/agent.

The written submissions were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Adjoining Parish Council Representation

The written submission of Mr Woodley was read out as follows:

·      The maincentralhub ofthe WasingEstatewas locatedwithinour Parish andwe wereonly tooacutely aware thatthe financialchallengefacingrural estatessuchas this,was becomingmore andmore difficult bythe day.TheproposeddevelopmentatShalford Farmwouldturn arun-down eyesorein toa lovely,localrural enterprisewhich wouldno doubthelp supportthe WasingEstateintothefuture,securingdiversified income,protectingthe farmingoperationand inturn protectingjobs.We all know onlytoo wellat themoment thatjob retentionand creation wasright atthe topof thegovernment's agenda.

·      Theidea ofhavinga farmshop and restaurantthatwas usingfreshorganic producedirectfrom WasingFarm shouldbe recognised,appreciatedand applauded,as moreand morepeople seethe benefitsof reducing,or inthiscase,eliminatingfood miles,helpingthe environmentand healthyeating. Therewould bemany peoplewhowouldrelish thechance togo andbuy some freshvegetablesthat theyhad seengrowing inthe localfields.

·      With thecurrenteconomicoutlook, apositive developmentsuch asthis, thatwill provide jobs and economic stimulusto therural economy,shouldbe welcomedwhole heartedly and fullysupported.

·      Our ParishMeetingwas infull supportof theproposal,recognisedthesignificantefforts theWasing Estatehadgone toin orderto reducethe sizeand scaleof thesite fromthe previousapplicationand would askthatthe committeeview it ina positivelightand realiseall thebenefitssucha schemewould bringto thelocalcommunity andeconomy.

Supporter Representations

A summary of the written submission of the supporters was read out as follows:

·         Three written submissions have been received in support of the application. The supporters included local residents and small business owners. The full submissions had been provided to Members; the following was a summary of the points raised.

·         The facility would be welcomed and well supported by the local community.

·         The community wanted locally sourced produce, such as that produced by Wasing Estate. It would encourage healthy eating and support local producers. This also facilitated improvements for local wildlife.

·         It provided an alternative to corporate brands that invaded the high streets and villages.

·         Both the farm shop and restaurant would be a much welcomed addition to the local area. A rural restaurant and farm shop would be a positive contribution to the rural community.

·         The development would provide employment opportunities. The application would help sustain the rural economy and community in changing times such as these.

·         With levels of working from home increasing, it was essential that rural communities were able to flex and adjust.  The countryside could not just be reserved for long term residents to walk their dogs, it had to grow and become a part of a dynamic and changing future.

·         The development would provide a much needed meeting place for local people. Rural hubs such as this should be supported. There was not a huge amount going on in the village of Brimpton. The proposals would be a lovely addition to the area, and would give the community a local option for such facilities.

·         The proposal would be a vital and sustainable proposal for the residents of Brimpton, Wasing and Aldermaston.

·         The proposals would renovate the run-down farm buildings, which were currently an eye-sore and would benefit from refurbishment.

·         All three supporters believed the proposals should therefore be approved.

Applicant/Agent Representation

The written submission of Mr Perkins was read out as follows:

·         The Shalford Farm development was a key part of securing Wasing Estate’s future. It would support the organic farming through providing an outlet for locals to buy fresh organic produce grown on their doorstep with zero food miles and to supply the restaurant delivering fresh organic meals for locals to enjoy with family. The accommodation and restaurant also supported the main wedding and events venue, which was facing increased competition and needed to continue as one of the leading venues in the country, something to be proud of.

·         Following the previous rejection, we have listened to you, we have worked with the local Parish Council, whom were now in support and we have critically reviewed the project. As such, the revised proposal before you, achieved the following:

1.  Complete removal of the Wedding Retail and Showcase element, dramatically reducing the retail floor space by 73%.

2.  Reduced the overall scale of the Dutch barn and reduced its height by 1.5m to only 8m.

3.  Completely removed a whole building (the narrow barn) from the development.

4.  Reduces the overall floor area by almost 20% to just 1,337sqm
The reduction from the previous application could be seen clearly in the blue outline on the elevations.

·         The Planning Officer was recommending refusal for the same two reasons:

1. Unsustainable location

2. No Sequential Test

·         The Case Officer had confirmed that he would support a scheme of less than 1000sqm. The Planning Officer’s reliance on 1000sqm as the threshold of acceptability was based on the notion that this represented the applicable definition of what was “major development” and that major development was unacceptable in this location and would require a Sequential Test. To adopt this black and white approach was wrong. By doing so one would ignore:

1. The clear advice of the NPPF which stated “the use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses had particular market and locational requirements which meant that they might only be accommodated in specific locations”

2. the synergies with the Estate (the scheme could not be relocated to a main town centre)

3. the operation of an innovative Travel Plan (which included an electric shuttle bus)

4. the Applicant’s willingness to accept a condition tying the site to the rest of the Estate.

·         You would fully appreciate that accommodation provision has to be supplied at the location it was serving, in this case the wedding venue. An Estate Farm shop and restaurant utilising fresh organic produce direct from the estate fields whilst supporting an existing hospitality venue must also be located on the estate.

·         When this Committee considered the previous proposal there was unanimous support for the principle of redeveloping this site, yet there was a feeling that it was just a bit too big. We have listened to you and you would see the new scheme had been very significantly reduced in scale and the intensity of the uses. The Highways Officer was content that the local road network could accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated.

·         An appeal had been lodged against the refusal of the original scheme – that appeal would be withdrawn if planning permission was granted for the revised and reduced scheme this evening.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Dominic Boeck in addressing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         He lived in Brimpton Parish. Shalford Farm was located on the boundary between Brimpton and Wasing, and was only a short distance away from Aldermaston. It was therefore located in the heart of his Ward.

·         There had been strong interest among residents in the plans for the Farm. While there had been concerns raised in relation to the first application, neither Brimpton Parish or Aldermaston Parish had objected to this application. The new plan was well received by residents.

·         Councillor Boeck was supportive for a number of reasons:

o   If the application was approved, it would result in the restoration of many dilapidated farm buildings which held some historical value. Approval would bring the buildings and land back into use.

o   Wasing Estates had exciting plans for the Farm. Post restoration, there would be the creation of new jobs. While AWE was only a few miles distant and a large employer, employment opportunities from the rural economy were more modest. The ability to create rural based jobs was a huge asset.

o   West Berkshire Council was doing all it could to protect and enhance the economy during particularly challenging times from Covid-19. Opportunities should therefore be seized to create employment and this application would support that both directly and in the supply chain that would feed the enterprise.

o   Approval would offer greater choice to local residents and the ability to purchase local produce.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

Councillor Keith Woodhams referred to the point made in the applicant’s submission that ‘The Highways Officer is content that the local road network can accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated’. He asked Councillor Boeck to comment on that as that viewpoint differed from the concerns raised by the Highways Officer.

Councillor Boeck commented that traffic flow was rarely interrupted in the local area and queuing traffic was not an issue. The only issue he could recall was during recent flooding in the area.

It was agreed that this question would also be asked of officers.

Reference had been made to the provision of a shuttle bus and Councillor Jo Stewart queried where this would operate from. Councillor Boeck advised that it would transport passengers from Midgham Train Station to Shalford Farm, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles.

In the absence of any site visit, Councillor Law explained that the roads approaching Shalford Farm were very minor and narrow in places.

Questions to Officers

Councillor Woodhams repeated his question to the Ward Member on traffic impact. Mr Dowding gave the view that roads in the area could in theory cope with the increased traffic, but the issue was that traffic levels were expected to increase by four times existing levels (approximately 480 movements per day into the site). It was also the case that motor vehicles would have to be used to access the site on unlit, rural roads that had no footways or cycle ways. The only alternative to the motor vehicle was the shuttle bus.

Mr Dowding continued by explaining that the traffic data provided by the applicant was only concerned with the impact during peak hours, but it was the expectation that the site would be more commonly accessed at off-peak times. The impact on the daily traffic flow was unclear. The consideration for Members was whether the addition to the daily traffic flow was acceptable on country lanes to an unsustainable site.

Councillor Alan Macro referred to paragraph 6.18 of the report which highlighted difficulties with achieving a BREEAM excellent rating. He questioned why this was not a reason for refusal.

Mr Butler explained that the achievement of BREEAM excellence was restrained by the site’s unsustainable location and it would not be possible to get anything beyond a ‘Good’ rating. The applicant was looking to gain a ‘Pass’ rating. Therefore, if planning permission was granted it would be contrary to policy on technical grounds. However, Officers did not feel it was a sustainable reason for refusal. Mr Dray added that Members could consider this as a justifiable reason for refusal.

In considering the plans, Councillor Macro noted that a large proportion of the garden of Cottage 33 would be lost as it was proposed to be used as a car park. He was concerned at this, as well as the close location of cars to the dwelling and he queried the impact on the amenity.

Mr Butler acknowledged that the garden space of Cottage 33 would be reduced, but not to such a degree as to warrant refusal of the application. The cottage fell outside of the red line boundary, but it was still in the ownership of the Estate. In terms of noise nuisance from the car park, Mr Butler advised that no objections had been raised on this by Environmental Health Officers.

Councillor Macro also queried if the boiler house was to be located in a green field rather than the farmyard. He would be concerned if this was the case.

Mr Butler confirmed that the boiler house was proposed for a green field, which fell outside of the curtilage of the farm site. Policy CS5 stated that infrastructure for new developments was acceptable in principle. The boiler house was a small building that would be well screened and the biomass boiler would help to sustain the development. Officers considered this to be an on-balance point, but did not feel it was a reason to refuse the application.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon queried whether the site was only considered to be unsustainable because access could only be achieved by car. Mr Butler confirmed that it was considered unsustainable for this reason as there was no public transport to the site, Midgham Train Station was approximately 2.5 miles away. In addition, there were no cycle ways or pedestrian access.

Councillor Mackinnon then referred to the application’s submission which questioned the need for a sequential test for this site. He asked Officers’ for their views on that.

Mr Butler advised that this was a difficult question to answer. A sequential test was not required for a small scale development, but this was not defined. However, the Development Management Procedure Order and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) did state that a major application was over 1,000 square metres. This application was in excess of 1,000 square metres (1,337 square metres). If it had been smaller in scale then a sequential test might not have applied.

Councillor Mackinnon followed this by referring to the applicant’s view that the need for a sequential test ignored the synergies with the Estate, the scheme could not be relocated to a town centre. Mr Butler agreed there would be synergies with the Estate if the application was approved. The applicant had volunteered a personal permission, but that was only permitted in exceptional circumstances and such circumstances had not been made clear.

Mr Dowding agreed with the comments made that the site was not in a sustainable location, with motor vehicles the only realistic access to the site.

Mr Dray added that accessibility was the issue. A fundamental aim of the planning system was to move to a more sustainable pattern of development that had a reduced reliance on motor vehicles. The concern was that this application did not support that wider objective. It had been acknowledged that local roads could cope but there was no viable alternative to motor vehicles, with no cycle paths etc.

Mr Dray then commented on sequential test requirements. The NPPF did state that the sequential approach should not be applied to applications for small scale rural offices or other rural small scale rural development. Although the NPPF did not define ‘small scale’ Officers considered that the size of this application in a remote location meant that it was not small scale in context. The fact that it was a major application formed part of that consideration, but this was also part of a wider planning judgment. This was therefore a consideration for Members.

Councillor Law commented, in response to a question from Councillor Tony Linden, that as Chairman, he would be notified if approval or refusal of an application would result in an application being referenced to the District Planning Committee. He had received no such notification for this application.

Councillor Linden made reference to the relatively recently erected Rosebourne Garden Centre in Aldermaston. He questioned whether that had been considered a sustainable development/site to help in determining this planning application.

In response, Mr Butler stated the need to consider the merits of the application before Members. Mr Dowding added that footway links were in existence to Rosebourne and there was a recognised cycle link to it from Aldermaston Train Station. Rosebourne was also situated within a village and residents lived in close proximity to the garden centre. It was a much more sustainable location than Shalford Farm.

Councillor Law referred to the small access to the site to the north of the main access which was to be used by emergency vehicles. He queried if this access could be used by delivery vehicles to the site and queried the visibility splays at this access point.

Mr Dowding was not able to comment on this access. The consideration by Highways had been on the main access point. However, Mr Butler explained that this was something he had raised with the applicant. The small access would be for service and emergency vehicles only. If the application was approved, Mr Butler recommended that a condition of approval should be included to restrict this smaller access point and not allow it to become a general access. This was particularly important as the visibility splay to the north was not good.

Debate

Councillor Macro referred to the mention made by supporters to the poor condition of the site and that this application would be a great improvement. However, Councillor Macro raised a concern that the applicant be rewarded for allowing the site to deteriorate.

Councillor Macro then commented that he used the roads in question regularly, in particular when journeying to and from site visits. As already pointed out, these were narrow country lanes, with narrow bridges and visibility issues in some cases. He would be concerned at an increase in traffic on these roads, especially when this increase would include larger/delivery vehicles and not solely cars. He had experienced congestion on some occasions on these roads. Councillor Macro agreed with the concerns raised by the Highways Officer.

Councillor Mackinnon noted and understood the reasons proposed for refusal of the application. However, he queried to what extent planning policy took note of the rural nature of the district and, in particular, this part of the district. For example, it would be very difficult to introduce cycle lanes in this area. Cars would therefore be needed to access the site. Councillor Mackinnon felt this was a good development that would benefit the economy and safeguard/create jobs. He would not want to limit the potential to enhance the rural economy.

Councillor Mackinnon noted points about a sequential test being needed for developments in excess of 1,000 square metres. However, this application was not greatly in excess of that. There were also wider considerations on whether or not a sequential test applied. The applicant had stated that synergies would exist between the development site and the Estate. Councillor Mackinnon felt there was adequate justification to approve the site contrary to Officers’ recommendation.

Councillor Pask took the opportunity to thank the applicant for taking note of the points raised by the Committee when the previous application was considered and making changes to the scheme as a result. Overdevelopment had been a concern for Members and the applicant had reduced the floor size. He also praised the intention to bring the site back into use and supported the principle. However, accessibility to the location remained a concern. The reliance on cars had already been noted and those accessing the site would highly likely use their cars to do so on what were narrow/single track country lanes. Councillor Pask was not convinced that a shuttle bus would be well used.

While local people had knowledge of the local roads and the limited visibility in some areas, this would not be known by non-locals travelling to the site. The proposal was smaller in scale, but Councillor Pask felt it would still generate sufficient additional traffic to create a problem on the local road network.

Councillor Cottam advised that he had sympathy for local businesses, but made the point that West Berkshire Council had declared a climate emergency, this involved making difficult decisions. The Council was policy led and its policies should therefore be followed.

Councillor Law made the point that a large part of the proposal was the provision of bedrooms to support the nearby, existing wedding venue. The local roads did therefore already carry traffic related to the wedding venue and the distance to Shalford Farm would be less then traffic to other accommodation.

Councillor Cottam restated that West Berkshire Council was a policy led local authority and the Council had declared a climate emergency. The Officer advice had been that the site was in an unsustainable location. He therefore proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Councillor Macro seconded the proposal and requested that the inability to achieve BREEAM excellence be included as an additional reason for refusal. This reinforced the point about the site being in an unsustainable location.

Councillor Cottam, as proposer, agreed to this additional reason for refusal.

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

1.    The proposal will significantly increase traffic in a remote rural location that has no pedestrian or bus routes and is accessible only by rural roads which are not conducive to cycling. Accordingly, by virtue of the nature, intensity and location of the development it would significantly increase traffic where the mode of travel can only reasonably be the private car. The proposal is therefore unsustainable and is contrary to Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS9, CS10 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, the Local Transport Plan for West Berkshire 2011-2026, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.    The application has failed to satisfy the sequential test for main town centre uses in Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The proposed major development is not considered to be excluded from the sequential test by paragraph 88 of the NPPF, as it is not considered “small scale”. This is primarily because it comprises an intense mix of uses in the context of the rural location.  The proposed development would accordingly contribute towards undermining the viability and vitality of local district centres, which would be preferable locations for the scale and type of proposed uses, contrary to Policy CS11 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 

3.    The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development will achieve an "Excellent" rating under the BREEAM assessment, contrary to Policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. The failure to achieve BREEAM, in part due to the limitations of the location of the site, reinforces the inherently unsustainable nature of the location. The application is therefore contrary to paragraph 150(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, in terms of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in development, such as through its location and design, in the context of taking a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change.