Agenda item

Proposal:	Erection of a farm owner's dwelling and garage with associated access.
Location:	Button Court Farm, Windmill Lane, Midgham, Reading, RG7 5TY
Applicant:	Mr A Inwood
Recommendation:	Delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to REFUSE planning permission.

 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/03068/FULD in respect of erection of a farm owner's dwelling and garage with associated access.

Planning Officer, Mr Bob Dray introduced the report and highlighted the key points. The detailed assessment was set out in the agenda report. No objections had been raised by Midgham Parish Council and no objections had been received on technical grounds. There were eleven supporters to the application. 

Members were shown the application site of the proposed barns (20/03069/FUL – pending consideration) located on the eastern side of the track.

Supporting financial information had been provided to Members in a Part II confidential report and there was no dispute with the figures. 

There were two main issues with the application, which were the principle of the development and the impact on the character and openness of the area.  Policy C1 of the HSA DPD gave a presumption against new residential development outside of the settlement boundaries. Exceptions to this were limited to some forms of development, one of which was housing to accommodate rural workers. New dwellings in the countryside related to, and located at or near, a rural enterprise would be permitted where:

i.     It was proven as essential to the continuing use of land and buildings for agriculture, forestry or a rural enterprise;

ii.    Detailed evidence was submitted showing the relationship between the proposed housing and the existing or proposed rural enterprise and demonstrating why the housing was required for a full time worker in that location;

iii.   It was demonstrated that there were no suitable alternative dwellings available or that could be made available in that location to meet the need. This included those being used as tourist or temporary accommodation or existing buildings suitable for residential conversion;

iv.   It must be shown why the housing need could not be met by existing or proposed provision within existing settlement boundaries;

v.    The financial viability of the business was demonstrated to justify temporary or permanent accommodation;

vi.   The size, location and nature of the proposed dwelling was commensurate with the needs of the enterprise; and well related to existing farm buildings or associated dwellings;

vii.  The development had no adverse impact on the rural character and heritage assets of the area and its setting within the wider landscape. Where it affected the AONB the impact on its special qualities and natural beauty of the landscape would be the overriding consideration;

viii.    No dwelling serving or associated with the rural enterprise had been either sold or converted from a residential use or otherwise separated from the holding within the last 10 years. The act of severance might override the evidence of need.

The Council had instructed Kernons Countryside Consultants Limited to review and provide independent analysis as to the need for the proposed rural workers dwelling. Kernons reviewed the application documents and supporting statement of need which had informed the Officer’s recommendations as detailed in the report.

According to the application, there were 80 hectares of permanent pasture land associated with the farm and presently 16 cross-bred beef suckler cows and followers at the farm. Calving took place all year round and that was what the need for a rural worker dwelling was related to. There were two houses in the vicinity; one was a bungalow for which the applicant’s mother had a life tenancy rendering it unavailable and the other was the old farmhouse which had been sold in 2004. There was no other available accommodation for use as a rural worker’s dwelling.

The view of the consultants was that 16 suckler cows and followers on site was not of sufficient scale to require an essential worker to live on site in the context of the policy. The scale of the proposed enterprise of 25 suckler cows would still not generate an essential need to live on site according to the consultants who advised that approximately 40 suckler cows and above would meet that need. It had been accepted that the two dwellings on site were not available. There was a query over whether there was potential for converting other buildings but the primary point made was that the applicant lived in close proximity to the site – two miles away in a nearby village – which the consultants concluded was sufficient proximity in order to meet the need of the application.

In terms of viability and size of the dwelling, there was no dispute over the figures that had been provided. The Consultants concluded that it was profitable and sustainable but commented that it was quite marginal. The criteria of size and location of the building and landscape, character and heritage considerations were the two factors in terms of refusal of the application. 

Criteria vi (size, location, nature of dwelling). According to the policy, the size, location and nature of the proposed dwelling should be commensurate with the needs of the enterprise. In terms of size, the consultants had taken the view that the dwelling was quite large for a rural worker’s dwelling. 

Criteria vii (rural character, landscape and heritage): The location of the dwelling was more concerning. Countryside in the area was quintessential of the countryside found in the wider countryside north of the A4 and shared many of the characteristics of its setting in an AONB in terms of woodland and undulating fields marking it out as a valuable landscape in that respect. The fundamental concern was siting the dwelling in an undeveloped aspect of the field which would interrupt the openness of the public views.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Barbara Grey and Toby Dyson, supporters, and Matthew Williams (Agent) and Andrew Inwood (Applicant), addressed the Committee on this application.

Supporter Representations:

Toby Dyson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Dyson said he and his wife had lived at Button Court Farm for over 10 years and were in full support of the proposed dwelling. In their view, the applicant, Mr Inwood, was a very diligent and thoughtful farmer and they thoroughly enjoyed living next to the farm. They heard the cows from the front of their house which faced the applicant’s fields. There had been occasions during calving when Mr and Mrs Dyson had called the applicant at 2.00am or 3.00am to let him know that it sounded like one of his cows might need his experience and assistance.

·         Mr Dyson said that if the applicant lived on site this would bring a positive impact to the welfare of all the applicant’s animals which was of paramount importance to the applicant.

Barbara Grey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mrs Grey said she and her husband had lived in Midgham since 1985 and had known the applicant and his family since that time. 

·         Mrs Grey and her husband now owned a 60 acre farm on the western edge of Midgham which qualified for higher level stewardship and the applicant had looked after their land with great care for the past 26 years, proving to be a very able and dedicated farmer. 

·         Mrs Grey advised that the applicant was born at Button Court Farm, his father and grandfather having farmed there before him. Since the applicant’s father died two years ago, the applicant had been managing Button Court Farm from his home in Upper Bucklebury, keen to carry on as a traditional Berkshire farmer. 

·         The applicant was passionately keen to care for his animals in the best way possible. The applicant currently had in excess of 50 cattle at the farm, 26 of which were suckler breeding cows. Mrs Grey said it was these breeding cows which were most likely to need the applicant’s attention, in particular during calving. 

·         The applicant knew that such care and attention could only be achieved if he lived on the farm close to his animals as he needed to be on-hand should there be any animal welfare issues that required his attention. 

·         Mrs Grey stressed that the welfare of 10 or 20 cows was no less important than the welfare of 50 or 100 cows. 

·         The planning application was for an attractive, modest dwelling which resembled a converted agricultural barn and its planned position was close to the other farm buildings and carefully designed to fit in and not look out of place with its surroundings. 

·         The impact on the nearby roads would be minimal and she thought the plans had made that very clear. 

·         Midgham Parish Council, of which she was a Member, had given its full support to the application and she could not see any reason why such a modest building, built to fulfil such an understandable need should be refused planning consent.   

·         It was worth noting that Mr Inwood was free to build an agricultural building in the same position without the need for any planning permission, such building could be considerably less attractive and with no restrictions or guidance from the local planning authority. Mrs Grey strongly believed therefore that the application should be approved.

There were no Member questions to Mrs Grey or Mr Dyson and Councillor Pask thanked them both for their contribution to the meeting.

Agent Representation:

Mr Matthew Williams in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Button Court Farm had been in the Inwood family since 1938 with the applicant, Mr Andrew Inwood being the third generation family farmer. The applicant inherited the farm in April 2019 following the death of his father and despite challenges faced in the UK farming industry, wanted to keep the farm running. 

·           A factor that had not been considered was the significant change which had been made to planning policy in 2018. This policy change made provision where an essential need for a new dwelling in the countryside included those taking majority control of a business as part of the farm’s succession process, which was the current scenario. When the applicant inherited the farm, there had been 17 head of cattle which quickly built up to 39 but unfortunately 15 cows had been lost due to an outbreak of TB. The herd was now up to 26 cows with a stock bull and all cows would be kept on and finished with beef. There was currently 52 head of animals on the farm. 

·           Mr Williams said he believed there was confusion around the applicant’s aspirations for the farm; 25 cows was never a ceiling for the growth of the farm and this would be significantly increased with the new buildings which were expected to be approved shortly (20/03069/FUL – pending consideration). 

·           With regard to the sight and sound test, Mr Williams strongly disputed the view of Officers and the consultant that animal welfare requirements could be met by the applicant’s existing dwelling at Upper Bucklebury, 2.5 miles and a 5 minute drive away. The enterprise required year-round calving with regular daytime and evening checks to monitor animal welfare.  On average this would involve five trips between home and the farm per day, and even more when it was known a cow was going into labour. Officers often recommended refusal for new dwellings in the countryside where there would be an increase in car travel, whereas this proposal would significantly reduce the number of car movements with associated environmental benefit. 

·           In terms of the dwelling size, there was no formula to calculate the size of the dwelling based on the scale of named dwellers. The Consultant incorrectly measured the size of the dwelling in their initial assessment and was now referring to national minimum space standards to justify the dwelling being too large. These national standards were designed to prevent under-sized and poor quality housing, particularly in urban areas and were therefore an inappropriate measure on which to judge this proposal. When the farm toilet, washroom, utility and office were removed, the floor space in this 3-bedroom dwelling was 217sqm (2,340ft²) which was not unusually large, particularly when taking into account this would be the principal dwelling for the farm. By way of comparison, an agricultural worker’s dwelling had been approved at a farm in Peasemore in 2017 with a gross internal area of 332sqm (3,570ft²). With regard to funding, planning policy did not require new dwellings to be funded by the farm business or existing property so this area of concern could be discounted.

·           In terms of visual impact, Members had had the opportunity to visit the site and it was hoped they would agree that the location of the site had been well chosen as it related well to the existing buildings on both sides of the lane which was needed for optimal animal welfare and supervision. The scale was limited to 1.5 storeys to minimise its impact and conditions in respect to materials and landscaping would ensure the development integrated within its context. Mr Williams said he did not believe the development would impact whatsoever on the setting of the AONB which was further north. 

·           In conclusion, this proposal represented a genuine and essential need for the applicant to be readily available in the interests of animal welfare having taken majority control of the farm in 2019 and this cannot be fulfilled by living in Upper Bucklebury, particularly given his intention and ability to develop the enterprise further. Every possible step had been taken from location to scale and design to ensure the dwelling respected the rural character of the area and it was hoped that planning permission would be granted.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Jo Stewart asked for clarification on the number of cows needed on the farm to generate an essential need for the applicant to live on site. Mr Williams confirmed that the applicant currently had 26 suckler cows, a stock bull and a total of 52 head of cattle. In terms of the applicant’s aspirations, this would depend on the capacity of the infrastructure available with existing buildings which was why more space was desperately needed. The applicant, Mr Inwood, advised Councillor Stewart that the current number of cattle on the farm could change quickly with another 12-15 born at any time as the bull was about to go out and some of the females/heifers were big enough and mature enough to go to the bull.

Councillor McKinnon asked Mr Inwood how many years his ancestors had lived on site and whether there had been an essential need for them to do so. Mr Inwood said there used to be a milking herd on the farm and his Grandfather had a milk round which his father had continued until it was no longer profitable. The operation had then moved onto suckler cows for beef animals. Mr Inwood’s grandfather and father had always lived on site and when Mr Inwood was born a farm worker had lived in part of the farmhouse and the family had lived on site in a caravan until Mr Inwood was three years of age.

Councillor Mayes asked whether the current land of 80 hectares was sufficient to feed the 52 head of cattle. Mr Inwood confirmed that it was and could indeed feed more and added that he also made silage and haylage on the land to sell.

Councillor Macro commented that from the confidential accounts it would appear that a large proportion of the profits of the enterprise came from the basic payment scheme which was due to be phased out over the next seven years and asked what would replace that profit. Mr Inwood said that a new scheme would replace the current scheme but it was not yet fully known how the new scheme would operate but might involve rewilding. Councillor Macro asked whether there was land available in order to do rewilding and Mr Inwood said he assumed rewilding would pertain to small areas around the outside of the farm but reiterated not enough was yet known as to the requirements of the new scheme.

Councillor Stewart said there was a suggestion in the Officer’s report that if the decision was made that a dwelling on site was necessary, that it could be positioned on the north side of the road from where the application site was. Councillor Stewart asked why the Agent had suggested that this would not be feasible.  Mr Inwood replied that positioning the dwelling on the north side would require knocking down two or three buildings which would then have to be replaced elsewhere – likely on the other side of the road – as the buildings were needed for machinery and animal feed. Mr Inwood added the only other possibility was for the dwelling to be positioned at the very bottom corner but it was very wet down there and would be taking him further away from the animals whereas the proposed location of the dwelling was right by the sheds where the animals were housed and in the ultimate place to see as much of the farm as possible for security reasons.

Ward Member Representation – Graham Pask:

Councillor Pask said he had represented the rural Ward of Bucklebury for some time, which comprised a number of farms and had always regarded farmers as the custodians of the countryside who looked after the hedgerows as well as using the land to make a living. Councillor Pask said the main reason for calling-in the application was because if this application was from someone who had speculatively bought a plot of land, the Committee would be looking for a mobile home or shed to be placed on the land to prove the viability. However, this enterprise had been an active working farm for three generations, since 1938, and was well established. One of the key points was that the applicant had been working very hard building up the stock to a total of 39 which was just about at the threshold of 40 suckler cows needed to meet criteria for someone to be on site. However, TB had struck and Mr Inwood had lost 15 head of cattle, but the intention was clear that he had a track record of building up the herd and was in the process of doing so again.

Councillor Pask questioned whether it was fair that Mr Dyson was expected to have to make phone calls to Mr Inwood in the middle of the night upon hearing cows in distress. Councillor Pask said another reason for calling-in the application was due to rural security issues; there was machinery on site and issues of people entering the land or damaging animals. Councillor Pask said he had sufficient sympathy to ensure the application was heard in a democratic way by Members to determine whether the application was viable under policy C5 in terms of the number of cows and whether the trend was there to be viable.

Member Questions to Officers:

With respect to policy C5, Councillor Woodhams asked who made the policy, who signed off the policy and, if the Committee were minded to approve the application, would it set a precedent for similar, future applications. Mr Dray said policy C5 was in the Housing Site Allocations DPD which had been adopted by Full Council in 2017. The policy formed part of the Development Plan and it was planning law that decisions had to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Members were advised to take their own view, looking at individual criteria in the policy and consider whether or not the proposal complied with those criteria and complied with the policy as a whole. Mr Dray said that in terms of setting a precedent, he was cautious to guide Members to make a decision that did not undermine the Development Plan but to consider whether the application complied with C5 based on the merits of the case, on the Officer’s report and the evidence gathered at this meeting. However, if a decision was based on site specific reasons, then it would be hard to comment speculatively on precedent though he would advise if he had concerns.

Councillor Pask said having heard the evidence from the applicant and his Agent, if Members’ interpretation of the facts in terms of viability regarding number of cows was deemed to be compliant with policy C5, could a legitimate decision be made at this meeting? Mr Dray said the interpretation of policy was a matter of judgement, if each criteria was examined and a reasonable argument made in each case then a legitimate decision could indeed be made.

Councillor Somner asked Mr Dray if he accepted the point raised earlier with regard to agricultural buildings being put on that land without further application to be correct. Mr Dray said there were extensive permitted development rights for agricultural buildings in the General Permitted Development Order Part 6.  The majority of them were subject to a light touch prior approval so basic details had to be submitted to the Council who would carry out basic checks to ensure they were reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. There had to be justification for them and a decision could be made by Officers as to whether or not further details were required on the siting and external appearance. The GPDO rights had conditions that had to be complied with and there was a prior approval process but in theory agricultural buildings could be built on land subject to that.

Councillor Somner referenced the view from the bottom of School Hill at the T junction looking across to the field and asked Mr Dray if he accepted that a wider field of view on the camera lens would have actually shown the buildings because it would have included the existing barn buildings that were there.  Mr Dray said he appreciated that the image was in 3D, but in person you could see the area was influenced by the existing buildings on both sides of the road. The primary concern was fundamentally that the aspect across there was currently open and undeveloped. 

Debate:

Councillor Woodhams drew attention to the assessment in the report against policy C5, on which basis he would be supporting the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

The scale of the proposed enterprise at 25 suckler cows would still not generate an essential need to live on site according to the Council’s consultant. Kernons had advised that approximately 40 suckler cows and above generated an essential need to live on site. Whilst there was scope in terms of land and the proposal for new farm buildings to allow the farm and its livestock to grow the need, at present, was not sufficient. Given these factors the application was not considered to meet criteria i and ii of Policy C5. 

It was, however, understood that the applicant lived 2 miles away from the site in Upper Bucklebury which was approximately a 5 minute car journey to the site. Policy C5 stated that a new dwelling would be permitted where the need could not be met by housing within existing settlement boundaries, and the supporting text set out that the Council’s preference was for accommodation to be located in nearby towns or villages. This, in combination with the above discussion in regards to how there was at present no established need to live on site, meant that criterion (iv) of C5 had not been satisfied. It was considered the enterprises current needs could, therefore, be met by the existing dwelling in Upper Bucklebury.

Conclusions on Policy C5: In summary, it was considered that the proposal failed to comply with criteria I, ii, iii, iv, v, vi and viii of Policy C5, and was therefore contrary to the policy as a whole.

Councillor Mackinnon said it appeared that the decision relied on the Committee’s opinion about whether or not there was an essential need for Mr Inwood to be on site.  Policy C5 did not reference a specific number of cows but it was the opinion of the consultants that 40 suckler cows would be required. Councillor Mackinnon said a compelling case had been heard from both the applicant and Mr Dyson that it was quite proper to take a different view to suggest that a fewer number of cows was required to justify a judgement that there was an essential need for the farm worker to be on site. Councillor Mackinnon said he did not believe it would be going against policy for the Committee to oppose Officer’s recommendation and recommend approval of the application; it was simply an interpretation based on the specific circumstances of this farm operation and the specific circumstances of this site as to whether there was an essential need for the applicant to be on site, which Councillor Mackinnon believed there to be.

Councillor Macro stated that he agreed with the views of Councillor Woodhams and added that there was one other aspect to the policy which must be considered which was that the development should have no adverse effect on the rural character and heritage asset of the area.  Whilst Members had been advised that the development had no adverse effect on the heritage assert of the area, Councillor Macro said he believed it did have a quite significant impact on the rural character because the site gave quite an extensive view from the road down through the valley. Councillor Macro said he was also concerned about the future viability of the farm because, as mentioned previously, a very high proportion of the profit came from the basic payment scheme, due for replacement over the next 7 years by various schemes which required some public good.  Councillor Macro said he was not sure there was sufficient land and ownership of the farm to actually achieve this. If in the unfortunate circumstance that the farm did not become viable in the future then a house would remain in a rural area, detached from the land, which would not be an acceptable situation. 

Councillor Somner stated that he had no issues with the policy in place which he believed to be sound but did feel, as previously stated by Councillor Mackinnon, that the application was subject to a heavy weighting of opinion by Members as to the individual circumstance. Councillor Somner said he was content that by debating, reviewing and looking at exceptionality, that the Committee did not set precedence as an outcome. Councillor Somner said he was sympathetic to the applicant’s concerns with regard to being away from his stock and said he understood, from his own family’s link to the farming industry, there was a high risk in many terms, not least of which was cost, if a farmer or organisation was not in a suitable location to control their livestock. Councillor Somner said he felt the situation had been driven by an unfortunate set of circumstances; if the applicant’s father was still alive then he would be on site and in a much better location to be able to address the needs of the farm.  Councillor Somner concluded that he was in favour of approving the application.

Councillor Stewart added she was sympathetic to the views of Councillors Macro and Woodhams and felt favour towards the comments from Councillors MacKinnon and Somner.  Councillor Stewart said it had been interesting to hear Mr Dyson talk about the fact that he and his family were acting as temporary rural workers by sometimes being the ones to raise the alarm. Councillor Stewart understood the difficulties faced by the applicant in managing the business as it was but also to build it without actually being able to be on site. Councillor Stewart said if it was not possible to build the business without the capability, capacity and the buildings to go with it, she was in favour of supporting the applicant. 

Councillor Linden said he felt this was a marginal case but there should always be an opportunity for a farmer who was dedicated to try and get to the levels required.  There were difficulties with constraints on the land in terms of an ideal site for the proposed dwelling but if the application presented an opportunity to continue with, and grow, the enterprise, then Councillor Linden said he was in favour of the application.  

Councillor Longton said he was very much of the view that farmers should be allowed and encouraged to live on their farms particularly where animals were concerned. Councillor Longton expressed his concern that approval was against policy but felt that as the applicant was intending to grow his herd to meet the standards, he had no hesitation in voting in favour of the application.

Councillor Pask thanked Members for their contributions and sought guidance from Mr Dray regarding conditions given that the application did meet the criteria of C5 in most cases but was subject to interpretation by the Committee. Mr Dray said he understood the proposal was on the basis that it complied with the policy C5. Whilst a list of high level conditions had been prepared, Mr Dray said if the motion was carried, then the resolution would be to grant planning permission subject to conditions and delegate the authority to come up with the conditions to Officers because there would be pre-development conditions as well, for which agreement with the applicant would need to be sought.  Mr Dray outlined the proposed high level conditions:

•        The usual three years to commence the approved plans

•        Submission of a schedule of materials

•        Restrictive conditions and agricultural tithe that was tied to the farm

•        Landscaping and ecological management plan

•        Details of hard and soft landscaping

•        Tree protection conditions as recommended by the Tree Officer

•        Construction of an Environmental Management Plan and construction of Methods of Statement which could normally be combined but which dealt with the impacts of, and during, construction and of environmental issues

•        Details of drainage

•        Electric charging points to comply with new dwellings policy

•        Parking in accordance with the plans to make sure that there was no on-street parking

•        Cycle parking as required by policy

•        The removal of permitted development rights.  The area was not in an AONB so they were quite extensive and given the site was open all around, there were side extensions and the quite sizable rear extension that could be added under permitted development

•        External lighting – even though not in an AONB, it was a rural setting

Councillor Pask invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Longton. 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 which would be delegated to Officers to resolve the detail.

Conditions

1. Commencement of development

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

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 following approved plans/documents;

- Site Location Plan. Drawing number 02 C;

- Proposed Site Plan. Drawing number 105;

- Proposed Elevations. Drawing number 103 G;

- Proposed Plans and Elevations Garage Building. Drawing number 104 C;

- Proposed Plans. Drawing number 102 F;

- Proposed Roof- Roof Plan. Drawing number 107;

- Street Scene Elevations. Drawing number 101 C;

- Site Sections Elevations. Drawing number 106.

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

3. Agricultural tie

The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in agriculture at Button Court Farm, Windmill Lane, Midgham, or a widow or widower of such a person and to any resident dependants.

Reason: A dwelling in this location is only acceptable because it provides essential accommodation for a rural worker at the farm. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP4 and CS1 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policies C1 and C5 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

4. Tree protection scheme

No development (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) shall commence on site until a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include a plan showing the location of the protective fencing, and shall specify the type of protective fencing. The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 6 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2012. All such fencing shall be erected prior to any development works taking place and at least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; tree protection installation measures may be required to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place. This pre commencement condition as agreed by the planning agent via email dated 10/06/2021.

5. Construction method statement

No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved CMS. The CMS shall include measures for:

(a) A site set-up plan during the works;

(b) Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(c) Loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(d) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

(e) Erection and maintenance of security hoarding including any decorative displays and/or facilities for public viewing;

(f) Temporary access arrangements to the site, and any temporary hard-standing;

(g) Wheel washing facilities;

(h) Measures to control dust, dirt, noise, vibrations, odours, surface water run-off, and pests/vermin during construction;

(i) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

(j) Hours of construction and demolition work;

(k) Hours of deliveries and preferred haulage routes.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007). A precommencement condition is required because the CMS must be adhered to during all demolition and construction operations. This pre commencement condition as agreed by the planning agent via email dated 10/06/2021.

6. Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP)

No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) (also referred to as a Habitat or Biodiversity Management Plan) has been submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the following:

(a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed.

(b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management.

(c) Aims and objectives of management.

(d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives.

(e) Prescriptions for management actions.

(f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period).

(g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan.

The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.

The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site and protection of the rural character of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is required because the LEMP may need to be implemented during construction. This pre commencement condition as agreed by the planning agent via email dated 10/06/2021.

7. Construction Environmental Management Plan

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the following:

(a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

(b) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones".

(c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).

(d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.

(e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.

(f) Responsible persons and lines of communication.

(g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.

(h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site and protection of the rural character of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is required because the CEMP will need to be adhered to throughout construction. This pre commencement condition as agreed by the planning agent via email dated 10/06/2021.

8. Hours of work (construction/demolition)

No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

No work shall be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

9. Hard landscaping (prior approval)

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the hard landscaping of the site has been completed in accordance with a hard landscaping scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hard landscaping scheme shall include details of any boundary treatments (e.g. walls, fences) and hard surfaced areas (e.g. driveways, paths, patios, decking) to be provided as part of the development.

Reason: Landscaping is an integral element of achieving high quality design. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD.

10. Soft landscaping (prior approval)

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until a detailed soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping scheme shall include detailed plans, planting and retention schedule, programme of works, and any other supporting information. All soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme within the first planting season following completion of building operations / first occupation of the new dwelling (whichever occurs first). Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of this completion of the approved soft landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: Landscaping is an integral element of achieving high quality design. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD.

11. Parking (approved plans)

The dwelling shall not be first occupied until vehicle parking and turning spaces have been completed in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out). Thereafter the parking and turning spaces shall be kept available for parking and manoeuvring (of private cars and/or private 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 applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

12. Cycle parking/storage (approved plans)

The dwelling shall not be first occupied until cycle parking/storage facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. Thereafter the facilities shall be maintained and kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: To ensure the provision of cycle parking/storage facilities in order to encourage the use of cycles and reduce reliance on private motor vehicles. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, Quality Design SPD, and the Council's Cycle and Motorcycle Advice and Standards for New Development (November 2014).

13. Electric vehicle charging points (prior approval)

The dwelling shall not be first occupied until an electric vehicle charging point has been provided for the dwelling in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the charging point shall be maintained, and kept available and operational for electric vehicles at all times.

Reason: To secure the provision of charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

14. Lighting strategy (AONB)

No external lighting shall be installed until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall:

(a) Include isolux contour diagram(s) of the proposed lighting.

(b) Ensure all lighting levels are designed within the limitations of Environmental

Lighting Zone 1, as described by the Institute of Lighting Engineers.

No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with the above

strategy.

Reason: To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site and protection of the rural character of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

15. Permitted development restriction (extensions/outbuildings)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no extensions, alterations, buildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C and/or E of that Order shall be carried out, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (June 2006).

16. Permitted development restriction (gates, fences, walls etc)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of that Order shall be erected, constructed, or materially altered without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. This restriction excludes any development expressly permitted by this permission, and does not prevent repairs or replacements (in full or in part) that do not materially affect the external appearance of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure.

Reason: To prevent the erection of such development which may have an adverse impact on the rural character and appearance of the area, or fail to conserve the open landscape of the AONB. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (June 2006).

17. Schedule of materials (prior approval)

The construction of the dwelling shall not proceed above slap level until a schedule of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Samples of materials shall be made available upon request. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials respect the character and appearance of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

18. Drainage strategy

The construction of the dwelling shall not proceed above slab level until a detailed drainage strategy for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the dwelling shall not be first occupied until all drainage measures have been completed. Thereafter the drainage measures shall be managed and maintained in their approved condition. The strategy shall:

(a) Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage methods (SuDS) in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (March 2015), the SuDS Manual C753 (2015) and West Berkshire Council local standards, particularly the WBC SuDS Supplementary Planning Document December 2018;

(b) Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels;

(c) Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site;

(d) Include run-off calculations, discharge rates, infiltration and storage capacity calculations for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm +40% for climate change;

(e) Include pre-treatment methods to prevent any pollution or silt entering SuDS features or causing any contamination to the soil or groundwater;

(f) Include details of how the SuDS measures will be maintained and managed after completion, including for access arrangements.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006), and the Council's Sustainable Drainage SPD (2018).

The decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework, South East Plan 2006-2026, West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (WBDLP) Saved Policies 2007, the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire, adopted 1998, the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 1991-2006 (incorporating the alterations adopted in December 1997 and May 2001) and to all other relevant material considerations, including Government guidance, Supplementary Planning Document; and in particular guidance notes and policies:

The reasoning above is only intended as a summary. If you require further information on this decision please contact the Council via the Customer Call Centre on 01635 519111.

INFORMATIVE:

1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that above conditions must be complied with in full before any work commences on site, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

2 The above Permission may contain pre-conditions, which require specific matters to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. For example, “Prior to commencement of development written details of the means of enclosure will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development cannot be made until the particular requirements of the pre-condition(s) have been met. A fee is required for an application to discharge conditions.

3 Reasons for granting planning permission

In coming to their decision on the application, the Members of the Eastern Area Planning Committee considered the application submissions, the officers' report, and the oral representations and answers to questions given during the meeting of 2nd June 2021. The committee concluded that an essential need for a rural workers dwelling was demonstrated in the circumstances of the case, that the proposed development complied with the criteria of Policy C5 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, and therefore was in accordance

with the Council's strategy for new housing in the Local Plan. The Committee was also satisfied that other locations for the dwelling had been explored and justifiably discounted.

4 The development hereby approved results in a requirement to make payments to the Council as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) procedure. A Liability Notice setting out further details, and including the amount of CIL payable will be sent out separately from this Decision Notice. You are advised to read the Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, and the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges. For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil

5 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.

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

7 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.