Agenda item

Proposal:	Construction of oak framed tractor and garden machinery building, construction of stable block and construction of all-weather riding arena.
Location:	White Cottage, North Heath, Chieveley.
Applicant:	Mr and Mrs J Green.
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions.

 

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of Chieveley Parish Council. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(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, but had no connection to the applicant. 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.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution point 7.13.5, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(3).

2.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 20/02205/HOUSE in respect of the construction of oak framed tractor and garden machinery building, construction of stable block and construction of all-weather riding arena at White Cottage, Winterbourne.

3.     Mrs Sian Cutts, Senior 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 permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

Removal of speaking rights

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 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.

5.     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.

6.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Ms Clare Bassett, objector and Mr Jonathan Green, applicant. Those able to attend the remote meeting were Mr Green.

7.     Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda:

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=5736&Ver=4

Objector’s Submission

8.     The Clerk read out Ms Bassett’s representation. Ms Bassett was not able to attend the remote meeting.

Applicant’s Submission

9.     The Clerk read out the representation. Members questioned the attendee as follows:

10.  Councillor Hilary Cole asked if the applicant had consulted with his neighbours. Mr Green believed that he had but it was several months ago.

11.  Councillor Howard Woollaston had concerns regarding light pollution, and asked whether the applicant would agree to a condition that restricted lighting in and around the arena. Mr Green accepted that the arena lighting could be conditioned.

12.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth noted that many arenas had mirrors. He asked whether the applicant had planned to install mirrors, and if so, whether they would be facing away from his neighbours. Mr Green explained that the arena would be situated south northerly and the neighbours were to the west, and therefore any mirrors would be placed perpendicular to the neighbours.

13.  Councillor Phil Barnett queried whether the information regarding manure disposal was requested by officers. Mr Green confirmed that he was requested to provide the information as part of the application.

Ward Member Representation

14.  Councillor Hilary Cole in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         Councillor Hilary Cole had called the application into Committee, as she was concerned about the impact the proposal would have on the amenity of the adjacent neighbour, and the wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·         She had no issue with any resident seeking to improve their property but this should not be done at the expense of their neighbours.

·         North Heath was a small community, and although it was in Winterbourne Parish, it was some distance from Winterbourne Village, and was separated from it by the B4494 Wantage Road, it was more closely aligned with Chieveley Parish and Village. North Heath had no settlement boundary and was in a prominent position on high ground, within the AONB, and looked across the valley towards Chieveley.

·         The arena and stables were proposed to be sited in the larger area of ownership of White Cottage, but outside the domestic curtilage. This area was on an elevated site, which despite statements to the contrary in the report, was not well or adequately screened. There was a good example of this in the Site Photographs pack looking out of the site towards the cottage.

·         A statement in ADPP1 was referenced in the report and addressed identified needs and maintaining a strong local economy. She was at loss what identified need this application addressed and how it would ensure a strong local economy, as the application for the buildings and arena were apparently for personal family use. Policy CS12 was also cited making reference to diversification opportunities for farmers, but as this property was not a farm, nor were the applicants farmers, she failed to see the relevance this policy had to this application. What was relevant however, was the fact that this was a proposal for a large arena set in the North Wessex Downs AONB which had the highest level of protection in planning terms.

·         Nothing in the officer’s report indicated to her that the design respected and enhanced the character of the AONB, rather to the contrary as lighting was proposed. The application stated that this would be low level, but there was no guarantee that this would be the case, even if it were to be conditioned.

·         North Heath enjoyed the benefit of dark skies, which were a major feature of the AONB.  A key project of the AONB management board was to ensure that dark skies within the AONB were protected, not eroded. As the district was 74% AONB, we had a duty as a planning authority to ensure this protection of our dark skies was maintained.

·         The other issue mentioned was one of noise. The Committee had given the effect of noise pollution a lot of attention and weight when it had been discussed for an application at Compton, and she asked that the Committee give the same level of consideration to the issue of noise at this site when debating the application. Horses were noisy, particularly when practicing jumping over fences and knocking them over. When coupled with shouted instructions from a trainer, this would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbour at the cottage and she see no noise attenuation measure proposed in this application.

·         In her view, the arena could be better placed in the land available to avoid disturbing the near neighbours, but that would probably be at a cost to the applicant as their own amenity would be affected

·         Finally, as with many equestrian applications in the accompanying block plan, the arena was referred to as a ménage, which was French for a household, what had really been meant was a manege which was a school for training horses. It never ceased to amaze her that horse owners and their agents consistently got this wrong. For these reasons, she was unable to support the application.

Member’s Questions to the Ward Member

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

Member’s Questions to Officers

16.  Councillor Woollaston asked if there was any discussion with the applicant about reducing the size of the arena. Ms Cutts confirmed that there had been no discussion on this point.

17.  Councillor Hilary Cole asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant about noise attenuation. Ms Cutts responded that there had not been, in this instance.

18.  Councillor Jeff Cant sought clarification of the impact of the application on the AONB. Ms Cutts noted that there were large, mature trees which formed the boundary of the site, particularly to the north and east elevations, which provided the setting for the houses which formed North Heath, in an elevated position as outlined by Councillor Hilary Cole. The proposed arena and buildings would be low-profile and there would be a low fence around the arena. Taking the filtering effect of the screening, together with the ancillary nature of the proposed development to the dwellings, she did not consider that the application would be harmful to the character of the overall AONB.

19.  Councillor Cant further queried whether these would be the considerations that should be applied to any structure one wanted to put up in an AONB, or specific to this one. Ms Cutts explained that when considering buildings, such as out-buildings and garages as part of residential developments, the way that the whole group of building were viewed together, and how they sat within the landscape, certainly were material considerations and influenced how officers assessed the application.

20.  Councillor Tony Vickers was curious as to the reasons for refusing the previous application, and whether the arena had been sited in a different location to this application. He queried that if he were to acquire a horse, would he have to get a change of use for his private curtilage to accommodate it, or was this application necessary because it was on an agricultural piece of land that was being used to accommodate horses, even though they were privately owned horses. All over the district one could see agricultural land with horses grazing upon it. Ms Cutts explained that equestrian use was different to agricultural use. The previous, refused application was sited in an open, arable field, which would have been a more exposed site. Councillor Vickers posited that this application was therefore more acceptable to officers, as it was within the curtilage of the existing buildings.

21.  Councillor Vickers further questioned whether putting a horse in one’s garden counted as equestrian use or not. Ms Cutts answered that the addition of the stables changed the use of the land. Councillor Vickers questioned whether there were already stables on the site. Ms Cutts explained that there were some buildings that the applicant referred to as stables, but which were not used for this purpose.

22.  Councillor Benneyworth noted there had been some disagreement regarding distances on the plans. Ms Cutts explained that an officer had visited the site on 24 November 2020 following receipt of the written submissions, as very different measurements had been cited. The officer checked the Ordnance Survey plan against the interactive map to clarify the measurements. There was a plan within the photograph presentation that showed where officers had taken their measurements from on the map. The officer on site, measured the gap at about 30 metres, officers believed that the neighbour had measured from her garden boundary across to the stables. Having double checked the council records and visited the site, Ms Cutts was certain that the measurements on the submitted drawings were correct.

23.  Mr Simon Till, Principal Planning Officer, explained that he had visited the site and used a 30 metre tape to measure across the field between the kink in the fence, amongst other fixed reference points, which was adjacent to the location of the stable and the boundary adjacent to the cottage. He measured the distance to be 35 metres in that location, so it was within a 50cm margin of error on the 1:1250 plan, which was a low margin of error in terms of that scale of plan. In terms of taking a more detailed measurement to locate the stables correctly, it was quite clear on the plan that this would be the distance that the stables were from the kink in the fence. He felt that there was quite clearly an understandable misunderstanding in the objector’s correspondence, where the measurements had been taken from the garden boundary, whereas Mrs Cutts measurements had been taken from directly adjacent to Bee cottage itself.

24.  Councillor Benneyworth sought further clarification as to whether any lighting would be subject to a separate planning application. Ms Cutts explained that it would be conditioned as part of this application so that no lighting could be installed without the Council’s consent.

25.  Councillor Woollaston sought clarification on the point that if the application was solely regarding the arena, the owner would not have needed to apply for consent. Ms Cutts explained that the arena, the stables and the tractor area would need permission.

Debate

26.  When opening up the debate the Chairman observed that if he had a piece of land and put four coats down on the ground and pretended he had an arena and jumped over poles, he would not need planning permission. He therefore wondered how concerns around noise would be considered.

27.  Councillor Hilary Cole thought it was unfortunate that the applicant had not adequately consulted with his neighbours, that measurements had been called into question and that there had been no discussion with the applicant with regards to noise attenuation. Horses were noisy when they were practicing in an arena and this activity was very different to horses simply being turned out into a field. Councillor Benneyworth’s comments about mirrors were quite disturbing, as irrespective of how they were placed they would cause reflection in this sensitive area of the AONB.

28.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed that the application be refused, contrary to officer’s recommendation, however should Members be minded to approve it, she asked that the length of the arena be conditioned.

29.  Councillor Adrian Abbs commented that he lived within 80 metres of the stable development and had never heard any noise from the horses. He respected Councillor Hilary Cole’s wish to bring this application before the Committee, but he did not see any reason not to let this go ahead. He might have felt differently if there had been a large amount of lighting, but he could not object from a noise perspective or to an oak-framed building in the countryside that contained horses.

30.  Councillor Benneyworth commented that he had a long background in working with horses and often it was not the horses that made the noise, but people. He could not see that noise would be a major factor with this application. He was also struggling to find reasons not to go with officer’s recommendation.

31.  The Chairman asked if there was a seconder for Councillor Hilary Cole’s proposal, but none came forward. He asked for an alternative proposal. Councillor Abbs proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Phil Barnett.

32.  The Chairman asked for confirmation of any additional conditions. He cited the discussion regarding the lighting and location of mirrors. Councillor Hilary Cole suggested that the length of the arena be set at 40 metres.

33.  Councillor Abbs confirmed that his proposal included conditions on lighting and the location of the mirror, however he did not understand the need to reduce the length of the arena. Councillor Benneyworth noted that 40 metres smacked as a little limited.

34.  Ms Kim Maher, Legal Advisor, noted that Councillor Abbs had already made a proposal, and that the condition on the length of the arena was not included as a condition within his proposal.

35.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Abbs, seconded by Councillor Barnett to grant planning permission as per officer’s recommendation. 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.         Commencement of development

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.         Approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:

                       I.       Location plan received on 23rd September 2020;

                      II.       Proposed Block Plan received on 23rd September 2020;

                    III.       Stable Proposed Floor Plan, Roof Plan and Elevation Drawing no 1 received on 23rd September 2020;

                   IV.       Oak framed Tractor Barn, Utility Store and Workshop Proposed Elevations and Floorplans  received on 23rd September 2020;

                     V.       Arena Fence and Gate received on 23rd September 2020; and

                   VI.       Planning Statement prepared by Paul Dickinson and Associated dated September 2020, received on 23rd September 2020;

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3.         Materials as specified

The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and the application forms.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character in the North Wessex Downs AONB.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), , Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies ENV29 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

4.         All weather arena materials

No development shall take place above foundation slab level until a schedule of the materials to be used for the floor of the all-weather riding arena has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The riding arena shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the approved schedule of materials.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity in the North Wessex Downs AONB.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006)

5.         External lighting (details required)

No development shall take place above foundation slab level, until details of the external lighting to be used in the areas around and on the buildings and the all-weather riding arena hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved scheme before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied     No external lighting shall be installed except for that expressly authorised by the approval of details as part of this condition.  The approved external lighting shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining land users and the character of the area in the North Wessex Downs AONB.  The area is unlit at night and benefits from dark night skies.  Inappropriate external lighting would harm the special rural character of the locality.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

6.         Manure storage and disposal (amended)

The development shall not be brought into use until full details of the location and method of storage of manure and its removal has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The location and methods of storage of manure shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent the proliferation of manure which would detract from the quality of the North Wessex Downs AONB and in the interests of amenity and to avoid any possible water/land contamination. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies OVS5, OVS6 and ENV29 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

7.         Private equestrian use only

Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or an order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), the application site area permitted shall only be used for private recreational equestrian purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the residential dwelling known as White Cottage, and shall not be used for any other purpose including commercial riding, breeding, training or liveries.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of nearby residents and of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS13, CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies ENV29 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

8.         Control of mirrors

No mirrors shall be installed on the riding arena fencing, or within the riding arena except in accordance with details submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining land users and the character of the area in the North Wessex Downs AONB.  The site is near to adjoining residential dwellings and reflections from a poorly sited mirror may result in unacceptable levels of glare and reflection beyond the site boundaries. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy ENV29 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006- (Saved Policies) 2007 and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

Informatives:

1.         Proactive

This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2.         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.

3.         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.