Agenda item

(Councillor Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew the objector. 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.)

(Councillor Dennis Benneyworth declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/02039/FUL in respect of the construction of stabling and hard standing. Change of use of agricultural to a mixed agricultural/equestrian use. Soft landscaping scheme on land west of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water.

2.     Miss Cheyanne Kirby, 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.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard confirmed that Highways Officers had no objections to the proposal. The access and site layout were considered to be acceptable. The road from the site to the A343 was of a good standard, and from the A343 there was direct access to the A34.

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, Mr Richard Coward, objector, and Mr David Wood, agent. Mr Wood attended the meeting.

7.     Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=5741&Ver=4

Objector’s Submission

8.     The Clerk read out the representation. Mr Coward was unable to attend the meeting to answer questions.

Agent’s Submission

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

10.  Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the ponies would not be relying on grazing to be fed, but in the officer’s report it stated that every trip to provide fodder would involve trips of 25 miles each way, twice a day, totalling 100 miles a day. In a time of dealing with a climate emergency when we were being asked to cutting down unnecessary travel, he enquired how long this would go on for. Mr Wood explained that it would continue until his clients were able to purchase a property in the area.

11.  Councillor Carolyne Culver highlighted that British Horse Society (BHS) and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) standards both specified more room was needed for ponies than was proposed in this application. Defra recommend each horse be provided with 0.4 ha and BHS recommend 0.6 ha. Mr Wood noted that ponies required less space than horses, and confirmed that the ponies would not rely upon the grassland for food, as they would be fed on hay and concentrates.

12.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted that the objector was concerned about the speed of traffic on Enborne Row. He asked if the horses would be ridden on the road, or if they would only leave the site in trailers. Mr Wood confirmed that the riders were young girls who would initially be led onto the road by adults. He noted that there was advice provided by BHS about how young children could ride safely on the highway.

13.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the site was currently scrub and asked about the management of the grassland. She suggested that the proposal to feed hay to the horses may not be successful, and that the horses would still graze on grass. Mr Wood acknowledged that the site was in poor condition and explained that it would be cultivated and reseeded to create fresh pasture.

14.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth noted that the site was relatively small, at less than an acre, which included stabling, access and hardstanding, and asked what the three paddocks would be used for. He suggested that if the paddocks were used for riding, that this would further reduce the amount of land available for the turnout of the ponies. Mr Wood explained that splitting the site into three paddocks would mean that the grassland and worm pests could be managed, and a three week cycle would give the grass a chance to recover. He reiterated that the ponies would have supplementary feed and would be browsing possibly more than grazing.

15.  Councillor Benneyworth suggested that the fields would need to be ‘poo-picked’ on a daily basis, which may be difficult if the owners did not live nearby.  Mr Wood explained that his clients were aware of the need to do this as part of their routine animal care, similar to cleaning out stables.

16.  Councillor Hilary Cole asked where the ponies were kept now. Mr Wood confirmed that they were in a livery near Abingdon.

Ward Member Representation

17.  Councillor Benneyworth in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Parish Councillors and some residents were concerned that the ponies were Trojan horses, with the proposal being a pre-cursor to a request to change the use of the land to residential.

·         Local Plan Policy ENV21 required that sufficient land was provided.

·         The overall size of the plot was 0.37 ha, significantly less than the recommended standard of 0.6 ha, notwithstanding that a quarter of the site would to be taken up by the stable block, hard standing and access road, which would further reduce the space available for the ponies.

·         Policy CS12 referred to “enjoying the countryside in a sustainable way”, but he questioned the sustainability of the owners daily 100 miles commute to look after the ponies and bring in fresh water twice a day.

·         Policy CS13 stated the aim to reduce the need for travel, but the proposal had the opposite effect.

·         Paragraph 6.10 of the officer’s report noted that the national speed limit applied on the road adjoining the site, which presented a hazard, particularly for young riders.

·         The Design and Access Statement claimed that there was adequate land which, with careful management, would provide grazing and exercise space for two ponies. However, he humbly suggested that “careful management” was an understatement.

18.  Councillor James Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Local residents believed that this application was really about getting permission for houses, and reportedly the owner of the land had been advertising it as such.

·         The case officer stated that animal welfare was not a material planning consideration, however the space available was dramatically less than the minimum required for horses as required by Local Plan Policy ENV29. Policy ENV29(d) in conjunction with 2.56.3 made the planning policy clear.

·         Putting two ponies into a small, wet paddock would quickly destroy the soil structure. The effect of constant wet mud on horse’s hooves could be quite damaging and lead to conditions such as thrush.

·         The proposal would result in unsustainable commuting, which would be contrary to policy CS12.

·         It would also be contrary to Policy CS13, but officers did not feel this was relevant.

·         Cars passing at 60 mph as a pony emerged from the site, could cause it to rear, throw the rider, thereby leading to the rider being hurt. This site would be used by young riders. Although they would be led by adults, it would still be a risk and more so in the long-term.

·         Many horses were kept in fields adjoining country lanes where the speed limit was 60 mph, but in practice speeds and traffic volumes were often low. However, traffic volumes on this road were high as drivers picked up speed as they left the village. In the other direction, the vehicle activated sign was frequently triggered. It was a fast road.

·         The land was not suitable for equines. This was an example of property speculation, and what was really needed in this time of climate change was to plant trees there.

·         This application was not even in a grey area open to interpretation. It was not consistent with planning policies and should be refused.

Members’ Questions to the Ward Members

19.  Councillor Hilary Cole asked how long it would be before the young riders would need to graduate to larger ponies or horses, and the size of the acreage would then be unsustainable for larger animals. Councillor Benneyworth suggested that given the age of the riders and the size of the ponies, it would probably be within two to three years.

20.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked if there were concerns about the horse’s safety given the remoteness of the site, and the fact that the owners lived so far away. Councillor Benneyworth suggested that ideally horses would be monitored on a frequent basis. However, he noted the applicants would make provision for someone to visit the horses twice a day if they were unable to do it themselves. He assumed that they would erect secure fencing and gateways to ensure the safety of the ponies.

21.  Councillor Barnett asked whether reducing the speed limit to 40 mph would address road safety concerns. Councillor James Cole suggested that the volume of traffic was also important and even with a 40 mph speed limit, he would still be worried. He suggested that the children would be led out initially, but would soon want to ride by themselves, but he did not consider the road to be appropriate for ponies or horses.

22.  The Chairman noted that Councillor James Cole had referred to the field as being wet land and asked if this was his own view or if it had been identified as such in a study. Councillor James Cole confirmed that is was his own view. The site was beside the river and had always been a bit wet.

Member’s Questions to Officers

23.  Councillor Andy Moore noted that a condition was proposed requiring no more than two horses to be kept at the site, but asked if the condition could be tightened from horses to ponies. Miss Kirby suggested that it would not be reasonable to limit the height of the equines allowed on the site, but separate legislation may apply, such as the Animal Welfare Act, and it would for the applicant to determine if it was viable to keep larger horses on the site.

24.  Councillor Vickers asked if it was possible to condition that the horses not be brought to site until the Planning Authority was satisfied that the land and horses could be managed from the local area. Mr Simon Till, Team Leader (Western Area Planning), stated that the applicant’s address was not a material planning consideration. He confirmed that planning permission applied to the land, unless made personal to the applicant for good planning reasons, because the applicant might wish to sell the land with planning permission in place. He strongly advised against imposing a condition limiting the applicant’s address, which was outside the remit of planning.

25.  Councillor Vickers wondered if it was possible to condition the application on the basis of the Planning Authority being satisfied that the land could be managed sustainably, since it was not sustainable to rely on long, daily journeys. Mr Till agreed that sustainability was important when considering planning applications, but he did not consider that it would be possible to devise an appropriate condition.

26.  Councillor Culver noted that on page 52, paragraph 6.25 of the officers report it was stated that animal welfare was not a planning consideration, yet paragraph 6.8 referred to ENV29(d), which required sufficient land to be provided. She observed that these two statements were inconsistent. Miss Kirby noted that this was one of the older saved policies, which was advisory only. She confirmed that planning could not consider animal welfare and reiterated that it was up to the applicant to determine if it was viable to maintain animals on the site. Mr Till stated that Planning Practice Guidance was clear that Planning Authorities should defer to other legislation where it better addressed the matter of concern, in this instance animal welfare legislation. He conceded that ENV29(d) sought to specify an appropriate area of land, but it was guidance rather than a hard rule. For this application, officers had sought additional information and were satisfied on balance that a viable use of the land could be made for the proposed purpose.

27.  Councillor Culver asked if a security related condition could be imposed. Mr Till suggested that this would fall outside planning’s remit and that the applicant would have an interest in protecting their investment.

28.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that it was a balanced application and wondered how much weight should be given to guidance and advice set out in the policies and other sources. Mr Till indicated that it was a difficult balance to strike where there were policies that referred to matters that were typically outside of planning control, and where National Planning Practice Guidance required planners to defer to other legislation. He confirmed that officers had looked at the requirements and recommendations of local policies in relation to the land available, and had sought considerable additional information and justification from the applicant, as well as technical advice from the Animal Welfare Officer. They were satisfied that the intention of the policy, to secure an appropriate amount of land for the use proposed, would be achieved. Officers had sought to avoid overstepping into the remit of animal welfare legislation. They had made their recommendation in the knowledge that our policies had specified recommended standards. Officers had sought information to satisfy themselves that the intentions of the policy, to secure that a reasonable amount and quality of land would be delivered.

29.  Councillor Benneyworth observed that the site was not large and calculated that around a fifth of the plot would be given over to the access, stabling and hardstanding. This left around 0.14 ha per pony compared to the recommended space of 0.6 ha. He asked if officers were happy to support this. Mr Till indicated that officers had gone to a satisfactory high level of detailed justification to support the proposals. He stated that overdevelopment on the site was a material planning consideration and suggested that Members may take a different view of whether or not the proposed use was viable. He highlighted that detailed consideration had been given to medical welfare of the animals and every point where this had been queried, detailed responses had been provided by the agent. Consequently, officers did not have concerns regarding overdevelopment.

30.  Councillor Barnett asked Mr Goddard for his view on road safety concerns associated with vehicles approaching horses at speed on Enborne Row. Mr Goddard noted that the demarcation between 30mph and the national speed limit of 60mph was a short distance to the east of the site, and he suggested that vehicles could be travelling faster than this past the site. However, he noted that the sight lines were very good, since the road was very straight and therefore it would be difficult for Highways to object. He stated that the Highway Code required motorists to slow down when passing horses, and with very good sight lines, he considered that drivers would have plenty of time to react and pass the horses and riders at an appropriate speed.

31.  Councillor Moore asked if it would be possible to impose a condition requiring the applicant to pay for signage to highlight the entrance and the presence of horses. Mr Goddard indicated that this would be a matter for colleagues in Traffic Management. He suggested that if it became an issue, then the applicant could approach Traffic Management to ask if a sign could be installed.

Debate

32.  The Chairman reminded Members of the details of the application to be determined and of the need to focus on planning issues. He appreciated that this application was dealing with animal welfare, and that this was an emotive subject. He reminded Members that matters such as the address of the applicant, the visiting schedule, animal welfare, land management and security were not planning issues. He asked Members to concentrate the debate on planning issues, in order that the applicant and others could observe that the application had been thoroughly discussed.

33.  Councillor Howard Woollaston opened the debate. He considered that the proposal represented overdevelopment of the site. He felt that trying to put two stables on a relatively small amount of land was not acceptable.

34.  Councillor Vickers agreed and suggested that highway safety was also a material consideration. The agent had stated that he envisaged ponies with small children being led out onto a road where vehicles were travelling at 60mph. Councillor Vickers acknowledged that it was the owners responsibility to look after their children and animals, but he considered that the Committee had a responsibility to ensure that the permissions they granted did not introduce risks to all users of the public highway. The Chairman noted that the Highways Officer had given his professional view on this matter.

35.  Councillor Culver disagreed that animal welfare was not a planning matter, and asked if the Committee would allow a tiny house to be built because it met certain regulations and policies, knowing that it would not be big enough for people to live in, and ignoring the advice of welfare organisations that stated that the space was too small.

36.  Councillor Benneyworth noted that there were Local Plan policies relating to sustainability and animal welfare, so they were genuine planning considerations.

37.  Councillor Hilary Cole disagreed with the Chairman and with officers’ application of policy. She noted that it was up to the applicant to determine if the site was suitable for the purpose of keeping horses, but was pleased that the advice of the Animal Welfare Officer had been sought. When she had initially looked at the application she had thought it was straightforward, however the more consideration she gave it, the more she was inclined not to support the application. She felt that the Committee had a moral duty to consider animal welfare in the knowledge that it would be sub-standard in terms of space for ponies, which would quickly be outgrown. Despite the applicant advising that the ponies would not be reliant on the site for grazing, she did not consider that there would be adequate space for the animals to exercise.

38.  The Chairman indicated that his role was not to influence Members, but to direct them to the planning matters on which Members should focus.

39.  Councillor Barnett indicated he would make his decision on the basis of comments made. Taking the Chairman’s comments into consideration, he agreed with Councillors Woollaston and Hilary Cole and would not support the proposal.

40.  Councillor Vickers agreed that it was a balanced application and accepted officers’ views about the applicant’s address being irrelevant. He noted that he had encountered many overdeveloped paddocks on his walks, where soil structure had been destroyed by not providing enough grazing land for equines, to the extent where the field had been turned brown. He proposed to reject officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission on the grounds of overdevelopment and highway safety, citing policy CS13. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston.

41.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Tony Vickers, seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston 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:

Members had concerns with overdevelopment of the site relating to failure to provide sufficient land for keeping of equines, contrary to policy and detrimental impacts on highway safety.