Agenda item

Proposal:	Erection of 1 bedroom North Lodge to be occupied in connection with Denford Park Estate with ancillary parking, turning, landscaping and garden area.  Alterations to existing access arrangements including replacement boundary wall and gates.
Location:	Denford House, Denford Park, Hungerford RG17 0PG.
Applicant:	HRH Prince Faisal Bin Salman Al Saudand.
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to Conditions.

 

(Councillor Dennis Benneyworth declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he worked in the equestrian world, including racing, however he had no connection to the owners of the site, nor the business operating there. He had also been lobbied by the applicant/agent and neighbour. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 20/01620/FULD in respect of the erection of a 1 bedroom North Lodge to be occupied in connection with Denford Park Estate with ancillary parking, turning, landscaping and garden area.  Alterations to existing access arrangements including replacement boundary wall and gates in Denford Park, Kintbury.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Principal Planning Officer, 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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

Removal of speaking rights

3.     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 was 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.

4.     The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the remote meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

5.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Callan Powers (Fowler Architecture) and Ms Samantha Ross (Ross & Ross Consulting), agents. Both Mr Powers and Ms Ross were able to attend the remote meeting.

6.     Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda: http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=6067&Ver=4

 Applicant/Agent’s Submission

7.     The Clerk read out the representation. Members questioned the attendees as follows:

8.     Councillor Tony Vickers question related to Condition 5, he queried what activities the employee and the employee alone would be undertaking with regards to security for the estate. In his experience there was a manned guardroom, rather than one sole employee. He queried whether the person who lived in the Lodge would be an active security person. Mr Powers confirmed that it would be a full-time security guard.

9.     Councillor Andy Moore noted that there was an existing security Lodge at the southern end of the estate, and that CCTV was part of this application. He queried that as there were automated gates and the approach to the access was visible, whether the security function could be achieved through remote monitoring of the CCTV cameras from elsewhere on the estate without the need to build the proposed Lodge.

10.  The Chairman asked for clarification as to whether CCTV was included in the application. Mr Till explained that the CCTV formed an ancillary development to the security room.

11.  Mr Powers described that the north entrance was the main entrance through which deliveries accessed the estate. The southern entrance was not suitable for this purpose. There was an existing automated gate at the southern entrance, however this did not provide the estate with the necessary level of security. The security Lodge would mean that the guard would be able to monitor and control who entered the site and what areas they accessed.

12.  Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that the guard would not be expected to work 24 hours a day, but would be living in the Lodge. She queried the arrangements for when the guard was not working, but was living in the Lodge, but someone else would be working in the guard room at the same time. Mr Powers explained that that there would be someone in the property 24 hours a day, but could not explain security details in a public forum.

13.  Councillor Culver further questioned Condition 7 where it mentioned the kind of person who would be living at the Lodge, and it stated, “…or retired”. She queried why a retired person would be living there, if the Lodge was intended for a security room. Mr Powers explained that this was standard condition wording for tying a dwelling to an essential worker and protecting the rights of the essential worker. He confirmed that it was intended to be a security Lodge. Councillor Culver asked if the occupant would be paying rent to the land owner. Mr Powers could not comment.

14.  Councillor Moore asked whether the applicant had considered changing the southern entrance into the main entrance. Mr Powers reiterated that the southern entrance was not suitable for a main entrance.

Ward Member Representation

15.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         Like most items that come before the Committee there was a weighing up of information from two sides. In this instance, a new build for operational and security reason in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), against the concerns of the residents of the neighbouring Denford Park Lodge. The residents had emailed me their concerns which I had understood and carefully considered.

·         As a policy led planning authority, very specific criteria had to be met when it came to new builds in the AONB. Policy C5 of the Housing Site Allocation Development Plan Document (HSADPD) seemed to fit this application with a regard to housing related to rural workers. Councillor Benneyworth quoted point 4.41 of the HSADPD, regarding the district’s approach to the equine and racehorse industry. Taken in accordance with Policy CS12 would support the provision of new residential accommodation where it was shown to be essential.

·         From a site visit with the applicant’s agents and his fellow Ward Members a few months ago, he had learnt that this was the only suitable position for the main entrance for the estate. The question of a more temporary building was mentioned, but as it was to house a full-time operational facility for 12 months of the year, this was not considered to be appropriate, especially over the winter months.

·         They learnt that the provision of the Lodge would allow for better monitoring of traffic entry and exit and prevent tail-gating. There really was no incentive to have anyone other than the security guard living in the Lodge.

·         Overlooking had featured as one of the concerns, however he believed that due to the staggered offsetting and distance between neighbouring properties, this was not a significant factor and he the conditions applied should give the neighbours some comfort that the building would remain in use for its intended purpose.

·         This was a sizeable estate, with the house sitting in some 130 acres, with a further 160 acres nearby acquired more recently. The stud was expanding its business and was a serious financial investment in his ward. The multi-million pound business provided employment either directly or through ancillary businesses, such as stud staff, security staff, gardeners, domestic staff, blacksmiths and vets etc. With bloodstock valued somewhere in the region of £10 million pounds plus, notwithstanding the high profile owner/applicant it was not unreasonable in his opinion to add this security feature.

Member’s Questions to the Ward Member

16.  Members did not have any questions for the Ward Member

Ward Member Representation

17.  Councillor James Cole in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         There were lots of reason to object to the application, such as a house in the countryside, the access of the road and the conditions of occupation, should the application be approved.

·         His primary objection was that this was a new house in the countryside. The justification was that it was needed for security and there were no other options available. A previous application had been refused as the proposal failed to demonstrate that there were no other suitable alternative dwellings that could be made available to meet the security need. He had not seen evidence to back that up. Nevertheless, if it were needed there were plenty of houses nearby that the estate could purchase and that in reality is what the estate is known to be looking at doing.

·         From one point of view, it would be nice to have an extra house in that location, however it was not actually necessary.  As some of the Committee had begun to wonder already, combined with the existing sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment, security could be provided by a guard hut that nobody would object to. Realistically this would better cover the 24 hour security need.

·         From another point of view, a neighbour commented to Kintbury Parish, that it was important to note that, unless Denford House built a wall around the entire estate, it would always be open to security breaches. Therefore, security alone was not a good enough excuse for a new house in the countryside. In reality any self-respecting raider would now use a four-wheel drive and go through a hedge.

·         As far as the access was concerned, it had been changed to remove the two-way option. With the current two-way process vehicles queued on the road when one gate was broken. The problem was that when you did get a problem, vehicles had to back up blindly into the lane and met other riders, pedestrians and cars. The block plan showed a lay-by inside the gate and a slightly widened splay for the entrance being retained. Quite apart from the effect on others nearby, he was not convinced that this would do what even the applicant would want, as it did not look big enough for the size of vehicles it was meant for.

·         He thought it was a pity that the agent had not spoken with the immediate neighbours.

·         He felt that the layout needed improvement.

·         The conditions of occupation tied the estate a small amount more, but still read like it was a retirement bungalow for retired jockeys and their widows. This did not appear to be a permanent full-time guard house. The justification was that a guard was needed, however the wording did not require the permanent person to be in the Lodge. To be a genuine guard house, it had to be a permanent guard house.

·         He suggested a simple additional condition to state that the occupation should be a current employee of the estate, capable of doing the guard job and if necessary a dependent while they were doing the job. The clause just did not look like one for a guard house.

Member’s Questions to the Ward Member

18.  The Chairman asked if Councillor James Cole had read the Highways Engineers comments in the agenda. Councillor James Cole confirmed that he had, but that he disagreed.

Member’s Questions to Officers

19.  Councillor Vickers asked if officers could clarify where the north lodge was. Mr Till explained that North Lodge was referring to previous applications for the proposed building. Councillor Vickers queried noted that on the map there was no building within the red line or anywhere near it. In the application in 2012 it was considered contrary to policy, but was approved. He remembered that this was called the North Lodge but he could not see it on the plan. Mr Till explained that the North Lodge was a building that had been approved, but was never built out.

Debate

20.  Councillor Jeff Cant opened the debate by noting that the officer’s recommendation was clear and that this proposal was for the equine activity of the estate. It was drop dead obvious that the application should be approved.

21.  Councillor Cant proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report.

22.  Councillor Vickers disagreed as his concern was Condition 5. The only purpose for the application was to provide a security lodge. He thought that Condition 5 should be amended in the way suggested by Councillor James Cole. He was not happy that the security arrangements required there to be a security lodge, however he did not have the necessary knowledge of the racing industry to be sure. He could understand that there were various reasons someone might want to access the site to undertaken criminal activity and could therefore accept that there was a reason to have a manned presence at the main gate. However, the person providing that in daylight hours, must be the person that lived there and that was not what was stated in the condition.

23.  The Chairman asked for clarification on the suggested wording. Councillor Vickers reiterated Councillor James Cole’s suggestion that the Lodge should be for the occupation of a security guard and their dependents.

24.  Councillor Hilary Cole supported the application. Precedence had been set as previous permissions for a North Lodge had been approved. On those occasions, Councillor Vickers and Hilary Cole had been on the Committee and had visited the site. It was a large estate and traditionally estates had lodges at both entrances, and she felt it was acceptable to have a lodge at this entrance to home and house a security function. She would not for one moment consider that it was needed for 24 hours, as it would be more to do with deliveries and people coming in and out, rather than anything else. She felt a physical presence on site was essential. She therefore seconded Councillor Cant’s proposal.

25.  The Chairman queried Councillor Hilary Coles’ view on the suggest change to Condition 5. Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the occupancy condition was probably a generic one, so that if someone in tied accommodation died, their spouse could not be immediately removed from the property. She was quite relaxed about the wording.

26.  Councillor Benneyworth did not see that there was any benefit to the applicant to have anyone other than a security guard at the site. It was entirely what the project was about. He was certain that, being a responsible employer, that the applicant would find alternative accommodation for the dependents. He was in support of the application.

27.  Councillor Vickers would not support the application without the change to the condition. It was not a usual tied cottage situation. In this case, should the guard retire, they must go and live somewhere else as the house was purely there for the purpose of providing security. If the condition was left unchanged, the situation could arise where the security guard retired and was allowed to continue to live in the lodge and a new application was made for another building for security.

28.  Councillor Cant asked the Committee to try to disentangle the potential of micro-managing the exact nature of the tenancy from what they were being asked to approve. As far as he was concerned, this was the same as any other application. The Committee should concentrate on the function that the building was provided for and should accepted that the building was for security purposes. He proposed that they accept the generic condition as per the officer’s recommendation.

29.  Councillor Hilary Cole agreed with Councillor Cant that the application should be taken at face value, and that the applicant would be foolish not to ensure that there would be a person living in the lodge that was not doing so for security reasons.

30.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cant, seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1             Approved Documents

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the following plans/drawings:

·         Drawing Ref. 190106-100 Location Plan dated January 2020

·         Drawing Ref. 190106-102 Site Plan received on July 2020

·         Drawing Ref. 190106-103 Design Scheme received on July 2020

·         Drawing Ref. 190106-104 Proposed Gates + Wall received on July 2020

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details and to enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission.

2             Commencement

The development hereby permitted hall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission as the final approval of the reserved matters.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission.

3             Hours of Construction

No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

Mondays to Fridays             0730 to 1800                        

Saturdays                              0830 to 1300

There shall be no demolition or construction works or related activities carried out on Sundays, Bank Holidays, Public or National Holidays.

Reason:  o safeguard the environment and local amenity.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

4             Removal of Permitted Development Rights

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no enlargements or extensions which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1 and Part 2 of that Order shall be constructed in the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: This condition is imposed to prevent the overdevelopment of the site and to protect the amenities, in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area and is in accordance with Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

5             Use of Materials

The materials to be used in the external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match those on the existing development in colour, size and texture, and those materials shall remain at all times thereafter as the unaltered external finish to the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 , Policies ADPP5 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), West Berkshire Council's Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).

6             Ancillary to the Main Dwelling

The development hereby permitted shall not be used at any time other than for purposes incidental/ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Denford House.  The development shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit and no separate curtilage shall be created.

Reason: The creation of a separate planning unit would be unacceptable in the interests of ensuring a sustainable pattern of development.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policies ADPP5 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

7             Equestrian Occupancy Restriction (Amended)

The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, known as North Lodge, shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, (or retired through old age or ill health), within the holding known as Denford Park, or a dependant of such a person residing with that person (including the widow of such a person), on the land identified in this planning permission.

Reason:  To ensure the dwelling remains available to be considered as a supporting accommodation for the equestrian business. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy C5 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2006 – 2026) Adopted May 2017.

8             Location of Security Cameras

The security cameras shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans received on 03 November 2020.

Reason: To protect amenities. This condition is in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

9             Landscaping:

Prior to the development hereby permitted, a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include schedules of trees and plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment.  The scheme shall ensure;

a)    Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.

b)    Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

10          External Lighting

Prior to the development hereby permitted, an external lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of how the lights allow for minimal disruption in the movement of protected nocturnal fauna through and around the site, taking into account existing and new vegetation and ecological enhancements. The external lighting shall be installed as approved.

Reason: To ensure the protection of protected species including but not limited to breeding birds which are subject to statutory protection under National Legislation.  The condition is in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside act, paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Polices CS14, CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

11          Bees

Prior to the development hereby permitted, details of two bee bricks to be integrated into the new structure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the location of the structures and the specification of the structures. The approved structures shall be installed as approved and thereafter retained at all time.

Reason: To incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around the development to protect bees. The condition is in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside act, paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Polices CS14, CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

12          Bats

Prior to the development hereby permitted, details of two integrated bat roosting structures or a bat loft with associated access points or equivalent to be integrated into the new structure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the location of the structures and the specification of the structures. The approved structures shall be installed as approved and thereafter retained at all time.

Reason: To incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around the development to protect bats. The condition is in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside act, paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Polices CS14, CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

13          Birds

Prior to the development hereby permitted, details of two bird boxes to be integrated into the new structure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the location of the structures and the specification of the structures. The approved structures shall be installed as approved and thereafter retained at all time.

Reason: To incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around the development to protect birds. The condition is in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside act, paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Polices CS14, CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

14          Roofing Membrane

Prior to the development hereby permitted, details of roofing membrane shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The roofing membranes must be breathable and are proven to cause a lethal entanglement hazard to bats. The approved structures shall be installed as approved and thereafter retained at all time.

Reason: To ensure the protection of protected species including but not limited to breeding birds which are subject to statutory protection under National Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) The Wildlife and Countryside act and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

15          Electric Charging Point (details to be submitted)

No development shall take place until details of an electric vehicle charging point have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling shall not be occupied until an electric vehicle charging point has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. The charging point shall thereafter be retained and kept available for the potential use of an electric car.

Reason: To promote the use of electric vehicle.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocation DPD and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

16          Access Closure with reinstatement

The existing vehicular access at the site shall be stopped up and abandoned immediately after the new access hereby approved have been brought into use. The footway/cycleway/verge shall, at the same time as the stopping-up and abandonment, be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and highway maintenance.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

17          Cycle storage

No development shall take place until details of the cycle parking and storage spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The dwelling shall not be occupied until the cycle parking and storage spaces have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The cycle parking and storage spaces shall be retained for purposes of cycle parking and storage at all times.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate and safe cycle storage space within the site.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

18          Parking/turning in accord with plans

The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plans.  The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking of private motor cars and light goods vehicles at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

19          Sustainable Drainage

The proposed buildings should not be occupied until details of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), such as water butts or raised planters, to be implemented within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that sustainable drainage systems have been implemented in all new developments. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

Informatives

1          HI 3 Damage to footways, cycleways and verges

The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

2          HI 4 Damage to the carriageway

The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

3          HI 8 Excavation in close proximity to the highway

In order to protect the stability of the highway it is advised that no excavation be carried out within 15 metres of a public highway without the written approval of the Highway Authority.

4          In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant by: scoping of the application and assessing the proposals against relevant Development Plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework including its associated planning practice guidance and European Regulations. Further, the Local Planning Authority has: identified all material considerations and determined the application within the timeframe agreed with the applicant. This approach has been in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

5          For further information regarding the discharge of the conditions or any other matters relating to the decision, please contact the Customer Call Centre on: 01635 519111.