Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared an 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.)

1.     The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserved the right to alter the order of business on this agenda and resolved to consider this item, prior to Agenda Item (4)2.

2.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning a planning application for change of use of Hazelhanger Farm from a guesthouse (use class C1) to a dwelling house (use class C3) at Hazelhanger Farm, North Heath, Chieveley.

3.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, representations were invited, however none were forthcoming from the Parish Council, objectors, supporters, or the applicant/agent.

4.     Ms Lydia Mather, 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.

5.     The Chairman asked Mr Gareth Dowding, Principal Engineer (Traffic and Road Safety), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Dowding noted that officers had not objections to the proposal.

Ward Member Representation

6.     Councillor Hilary Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

• This agricultural building had been granted prior approval for change to a guest house in 2016, with the full application being subsequently submitted in 2017. The new application for change of use from Class C1 to C3 dwelling house had caused her sufficient concern to call it into committee. Although, the conversion was of an extremely high standard and the dwelling was very attractive, and the applicants had done nothing technically wrong in the approach to conversion, she believed this was a good example of development by stealth.
• Although the officer’s report stated that had the change of use been considered as part of a full application, it was likely that it would have been in accordance with policy C4 of the Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (HSADPD), she contended that this was conjecture and had not been tested at Committee.
• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was revised in 2019 and set out the government’s economic, environment and social planning policies for England, and detailed how they were expected to be applied. Officers had been given firm direction to apply additional weight to this overarching economic objective, which was a material consideration, when determining applications in order to aid the recovery of the local economy post Covid. Although the hospitality industry had been hardest hit by the Covid Pandemic, now that we were emerging from it, it was in the strongest position to recover. UK holiday accommodation was at a premium due to the uncertainty around travelling abroad. However, before the Committee was an application to change a guest house to a domestic dwelling, with no justification from the applicants to substantiate the lack of viability of the business. She was somewhat bemused by the officer recommendation to grant approval, as she felt it was premature. She requested that the Committee refused permission for potentially a two year period, to give the applicant time to build up a viable business. However, if the Committee were minded to approve the application, she requested that the following additional conditions be applied:

Member Questions to the Ward Member

7.     Councillor Tony Vickers was unclear why the Ward Member felt that the proposal was unsustainable, given the great changes that had occurred during Covid, with people potentially no longer having to make a daily commute. Councillor Hilary Cole explained that the issue was not sustainability, but that the applicants were claiming that the guesthouse was no longer a viable business due to their experiences during Covid. She pointed out that the country was now coming out of Covid, and the applicants had not tested the business, as they had been granted a change to C1 but never operated it as a guesthouse.

8.     Councillor Adrian Abbs queried the constraints requested for the barn on site. Councillor Hilary Cole stated that she had noticed that a window and front door had installed in the barn, and had been told by the owners that the building was only being used for storage. However, if the barn were only to be used for the storage of farm machinery, then she queried why a window would be installed that allowed people to see what was being stored and make it less secure. She was therefore concerned about the future intentions of the owners with regards to the barn. As the barn was outside the curtilage she wanted to draw Members attention to it.

Member Questions to Officers

9.     Councillor Carolyne Culver sought clarification on whether it was necessary for an applicant to justify the lack of viability of a business, and whether the consideration of economic factors was part of policy. Ms Mather explained that for public houses there was an updated supplementary policy document that required marketing for six months and viability information, however that did not apply to the guesthouse. However, in the Update Report reference had been made to CS10 on the rural economy, which specifies that, “proposals seeking the loss of existing small enterprises in the rural economy should not negatively impact upon the local economy or the vitality and viability of the surrounding rural area”. This was the test under CS10, however it was not set out how that would be achieved, in contrast to the specifications around public houses. In terms of the economic factors, the NPPF required a balanced consideration of environmental, economic and social impacts of development. Officers had been guided by Members that they should give additional weight to economic factors at this time.

10.  Councillor Vickers referenced the Update Report and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which required a demonstration that lawful use of the buildings had occurred for six continuous months in the prior three years. As part of the change of use, they must demonstrate the existing lawful use occurred for six months within the last three years. Ms Mather explained that change of use to a dwelling was CIL liable, however the sum payable may be nil if the building had been in continuous use for 6 months in the last three years (and that could include the previous agricultural use or the guesthouse). The CIL regulations were separate to the planning process.

11.  Councillor Abbs referred back to the original request to change the use of the building into a guesthouse and he presumed that a business plan had been presented at that time. It was difficult for him to judge the loss of revenue without sight of the business plan. Ms Mather explained that there was no requirement for a business case at the time, as the change from agricultural use to a guesthouse was made under permitted development rights. The application would have had to comply with the requirements of the general permitted development order and it was one for a flexible use e.g. a shop, restaurant, cinema or guesthouse, therefore officers did not have that information. Ms Mather further explained that officers had requested information on the current guest house use, but none had been provided.

12.  Councillor Clive Hooker queried whether the Committee had the power to refuse on the grounds of the business being poorly run. Ms Mather replied that they could not. However, the Committee should consider that if the economic implications are of concern, then the relevant policy was CS10, which stated that loss to the local economy was a consideration for proposals involving the loss of a rural enterprise. Councillor Hooker remarked that a badly run business would make no contribution to the rural economy. Ms Mather noted that the guesthouse was ready to be operational in September 2020, but had not been opened due to the pandemic.

Debate

13.  Councillor Abbs opened the debate by expressing that he felt that if the original application had been for a private residence, he would not have voted to approve it had it come to Committee as it would have a precedent. The route this application had taken, whereby it could now have a change of use to become a residential dwelling did not change his mind. He believed there was an absolute need for holiday accommodation, therefore there should be no question about viability under such circumstances. In terms of environmental terms, this was a high quality guesthouse that was an attractive place to stay. He felt it could make a valuable contribution to the economy of West Berkshire.

14.  Councillor Vickers concurred with Councillor Hilary Cole. People were crying out for staycation premises and believed that if the Committee refused the application and the owner tried to make the business a success they would achieve it. He was inclined to refuse on the grounds that lack of viability had not been demonstrated. He felt that the economic benefit of a guesthouse was greater than a residence due to associated services being required.

15.  Councillor Vickers proposed to reject officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for the grounds that there was not sufficient evidence that the business would fail. He asked if a condition could be added that the applicant could not reapply within two years and at that time would have to prove that they could not make it viable

16.  This was seconded by Councillor Cole.

17.  Councillor Barnett suggested that he would support the proposal. He noted that many people might like to be able to get away for a short country retreat without travelling far. Further to this Berkshire was currently being promoted as a staycation destination and he was sure this would be a viable proposition.

18.  Councillor Hooker concurred with his fellow councillors. He had seen cases in the past where evidence had been expected in terms of demonstrating that a business had been properly marketed at a competitive rate.

19.  Ms Mather stated that a condition could not be added to a refusal, however an informative could be added that the Committee felt two years was an appropriate timeframe before any new application could be made. Councillor Vickers withdrew his request for the condition.

20.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Vickers, seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole 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:

Reasons that the lack of viability was not demonstrated to justify the removal of the guesthouse from the local economy.

This application seeks permission for the change of use of a guesthouse (C1 use) to a dwelling house (C3 use) on a site which lies outside of any defined settlement boundary. Policy CS10 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 seeks to support the rural economy and states "Existing small and medium sized enterprises within the rural areas will be supported in order to provide local job opportunities and maintain the vitality of smaller rural settlements. Proposals seeking the loss of such existing sites and premises must demonstrate that the proposal does not negatively impact upon the local economy, and the vitality and viability of the surrounding rural area." Where no supporting information has been provided, the application fails to demonstrate that the guesthouse cannot be retained. Whilst the applicant states that the business is not viable, no information has been submitted to support this claim.

It is considered that this application does not provide sufficient justification for the loss of the guesthouse accommodation as the impact on the rural economy cannot be fully assessed. The application therefore falls contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS10 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.