To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 20/02993/FUL, Eddington Mill House, Upper Eddington, Hungerford

Proposal:

Detached Oak Framed Agricultural Storage Barn.

Location:

Eddington Mill House, Upper Eddington, Hungerford, RG17 0HL.

Applicant:

John Willmott.

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed in Section 8 of the report.

 

Minutes:

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/02993/FUL in respect of Eddington Mill House, Upper Eddington, Hungerford, RG17 0HL for a detached oak framed agricultural storage barn.

2.      Ms 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 Development and Planning 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 did not.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Alistair Fyfe (Hungerford Town Council), and Mr John Willmott (applicant) addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.      Mr Fyfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

  • The application lacked necessary detail. There was no barn height specified in the report, and the Town Council was concerned about future dispute over the height if it was not clearly specified.
  • A number of properties currently overlook the field on which the barn would be built, and issues would be caused by the erection of an overly tall barn.
  • The Town Council was surprised by the lack of doors on the storage area of the barn, which would contain heavy machinery such as tractors, and that it would present a later security risk.
  • The Town Council believed that, if the barn was over five metres tall, it was to allow for the building of a mezzanine floor in the future, which the report did not specify.
  • The Site Section drawing (page 61), showed the existing and proposed ground level, and indicated there was a slope requiring the barn to sit about 0.75 metres into the slope. The Town Council believed this drawing to be inaccurate, with the photographs not adequately showing the size of the slope, and the height of the barn would be increased from the current ground level.
  • Accurate topographical surveying would have been useful.
  • Runoff of surface water needed to be fully considered and calculated by professionals. Properties under this postcode have previously experienced flooding, and water butts would not be adequate on a building of this size.
  • The land appeared to lack a significant number of fruit-bearing trees to warrant a storage unit of this size. There were currently three alpacas and some goats on-site. The tractor was no larger than a mower, and was currently adequately stored on-site. These facts appeared to contradict the reasoning set out by the applicant.
  • There was not a current business need for the construction of a barn of this size. A full business plan should have been provided to justify such a need.
  • The development would amount to inappropriate annexation of the domestic land, and would open up further planning opportunities on agricultural land, which should be fully considered and approved, rather than accepted as a consequence of the development.
  • The house was currently under a Noise Abatement Order, and increased noise should not be exacerbated any further.
  • The Town Council, accepting that public rights of way issues were dealt with separately to planning, felt that on this occasion there was substantial reason to address it now. The diversion of obstruction of the public footpath by a fence must be given consideration as part of the planning process. The Town Council requested, as a precondition, the movement of the fence to respect the historic line of the footpath, or full application for a diversion of it.
  • The Town Council noted the significant number of objections, and urged the committee to fully consider the reasons for those objections and the concerns raised.
  • The Town Council, citing the number of perceived inaccuracies within the application and planning report, asked that the committee reject the application.

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.      Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Mr Fyfe to expand on comments that land had already been taken over as garden.

7.      Mr Fyfe pointed to Page 58, and stated that the land was considered by the applicate to be a desolate part of his garden. It contained nothing but grass, and construction was underdoing in the centre.

8.      The land from the barn to the northwest was meant to be agricultural land, and Google Earth satellite photography from 2003 to 2008 clearly illustrated crops, with the footpath around it. The latest photography, from 2017, also shows this.

9.      Mr Fyfe noted that the applicant moved in afterwards, and so was not responsible for the movement of the historic footpath, but the issue was the erection of a wall that would cut it off.

10.   Councillor Hilary Cole asked whether the issue of the historic footpath had been raised with the Public Rights of Way team, and noted that it was not relevant to the planning process before the committee.

11.   Mr Fyfe responded that he was new to Hungerford Town Council, but that he believed that it was a running issue and had been raised with officers.

12.   Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the issues raised were supposition and conjecture rather than referring directly to the application, and asked what the real concerns of Hungerford Town Council were with regards to the application.

13.   Mr Fyfe responded that main issues being raised were the size and height of the development, the fact that it was overlooked, and concerns over the accuracy of the plans submitted.

Applicant Representation

14.   Mr John Willmott in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

  • Mr Willmott ran a business that operated three restaurants, specialising in natural, healthy food, and believing in sustainability, with home-grown, organic produce.
  • The site was acquired in 2017 in order to upgrade the existing facilities that were there, including 36 apple trees. The site itself previously contained allotments that were used for growing fruit and vegetables. A piece of agricultural land next to the mill had additionally been acquired.
  • The historic footpath has been undisturbed, and had already been redirected by a neighbour expanding the boundaries of their land, which was currently being dealt with by officers. The only proposal was a small fence around it.
  • The reason for the application was that the restaurant business was expanding, and required additional grown produce. A business plan was created for the application, which projected a small profit in the first year.
  • Noise pollution was unlikely, as there were few animals. The Noise Abatement Order was due to guinea fowl and peacocks, which had either been removed completely or relocated to a different site.
  • Runoff water would be dealt with through the use of land drains, and there was no intention to use water butts.
  • The animals on site were used for personal hobby farming, as well as for the restaurants.
  • The garden that was referred to, was in fact just a lawn, associated with the house. Mr Willmott expressed that he did not understand what the issue with the lawn was.
  • Mr Willmott offered to accept a condition that a mezzanine not be built, as there was never an intention to build a mezzanine. The building was to house a cheap, second-hand tractor, and was protected by electrical gates, making a security issue unlikely.

Member Questions to the Applicant

15.   Councillor Carolyne Culver asked whether the four sheds Mr Willmott had offered to take down as part of the application process were measured in feet or metres.

16.   Mr Willmott responded that it was measured in feet.

17.   Councillor Culver additionally noted that Mr Willmott’s intention was to grow fresh produce, but there was no proposal for a storage facility, and asked why there was no such proposal. Councillor Culver noted that only fruit was currently being grown.

18.   Mr Willmott responded that the kitchen of the house would be used for storage, and that there was an intention to begin growing vegetables.

19.   Councillor Culver asked what would happen to the goats once the goat shed had been demolished.

20.   Mr Willmott responded that the goat shed was very small, and the plan was to move it to a different part of the site. Fencing would be changed to accommodate the animals.

21.   Councillor Abbs asked what the extent of the agricultural land feeding into the barn would be.

22.   Mr Willmott showed the photograph depicting the far end of the site (Page 67) and explained where the 36 fruit trees were located. The space between the fence posts and the orchard would be the agricultural land on which the vegetables would be grown.

23.   Mr Willmott added that the land to the south was the front lawn of the mill, with landscaping ongoing behind the horse chestnut tree.

Ward Member Representation

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

  • There was no reason to reject an application with an agricultural basis.
  • Attending the site visit, he had observed that the grass had been cut very short, which did not seem consistent with agricultural use. Instead, he accepted that this was largely hobby farming.
  • He had no issue with the proposed use of the barn for the storage of a tractor and other farming items and produce. Additionally, Councillor Cole
  • He noted a comment made by a committee member during the visit that any animals on site would have difficulty producing milk.
  • There was a lack of a clear business plan justifying the consideration of the application as an agricultural one. Additionally, he could not see that the size of the tractor justified the size of the barn proposed.
  • The comments from Hungerford Town Council regarding the effect of the barn overlooking other residents were justified, and should be considered.
  • There was a history of flooding in the area, and he expressed relief that water butts were not being considered as they would not be effective against rainfall. He expressed surprise that there was no sustainable drainage plan for a proposal on permeable land.
  • The historic footpath should be reinstated to its original route and the applicant be required to install adequate fencing.
  • Councillor Cole stated that he was not in favour of the proposal as it stands, but did ask that if it were approved, the agricultural conditions be tightened, and that Condition 7 about existing sheds be made more precise, with the ground reinstatement be conditioned to be green.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

25.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

26.   Councillor Abbs asked whether a proposal that involves an illegal diversion of a footpath would set a precedent, or whether it should be rejected outright.

27.   Mr Simon Till responded that principal planning legislation and guidance states that where other legislation deals with a matter, that planning should not address that matter. In this case, the footpath legislation would address potential issues with the historic footpath, and therefore not set a precedent.

28.   The Chairman asked for detailed plans, not just levels, to provide reassurance that the development did not have any impact on the public right of way. Ms Kirby responded that the submitted drawing was from the Public Right of Way Officer, showing a definitive line of the public right of way, which the building did not sit on. The fence did sit on the line, however, this was an issue for Public Rights of Way legislation. Councillor Hilary Cole pointed the Chairman to Page 47, 52-53, stating that there was no objection from Public Rights of Way.

29.   Councillor Abbs asked whether there was any legislation about the proportions of buildings on types of agricultural land.

30.   Mr Till responded that there was no such legislation or regulation about a proposal of this size.

31.   Councillor Howard Woollaston asked whether there would be any external lighting.

32.   Ms Kirby responded that this was a suggested condition due to this being an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Dark Skies Policy.

Debate

33.   Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate by stating that she understood the concerns of the objectors and Hungerford Town Council, but they were largely based on future applications rather than the one currently being considered. The question was whether the building was appropriate for its intended use, of which she was satisfied that it was. Without a valid reason to reject it, there was no reason not to grant planning permission.

34.   The Chairman asked whether there were any amendments to the Officer’s recommendation, such as additional conditions. No additional conditions were proposed.

35.   Councillor Hilary Cole proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Cant.

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

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

Conditions

1. 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:

·       Location Plan 43350/01 received 6th January 2021;

·       Proposed Plans and Elevations 43350/03 received 6th January 2021;

·       Design and Access Statement received 18th December 2020;

·       Ecology Letter received 18th May 2021;

·       Updated Ecology Letter received 24th May 2021;

·       Block Plan 43350/05 received 23rd July 2021;

·       Site Section 43350/04 received 7th July 2021;

·       Building Removal Plan 43350/02 received 9th August 2021.

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 application form.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

4. Lighting strategy (AONB)

No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed to the barn until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include a plan to show the location of any lighting, isolux contour diagram(s), an operation strategy (e.g. details of timed operation), and specifications all lighting to ensure that 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 WHERE except in accordance with the above strategy.

Reason: To conserve the dark night skies of the North Wessex Downs AONB. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

5. Biodiversity measures

The building shall not be brought into use until the following biodiversity measures have been installed/constructed:

(a) One integral bat box into the barn in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(b) One bird nesting opportunities in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure biodiversity enhancements are incorporated into the development. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

6. Ecological mitigation

All ecological measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Ecology letter received 18th May 2021 and the Updated Ecology Letter received 24th May 2021, in accordance with the approved details and before first use of the building.

Reason: To ensure there are no significant impacts on the local designated areas. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

7. Demolition of existing buildings

The building shall not be brought into use until the existing buildings have been demolished, and all spoil removed from the site, in accordance with the Building Removal Plan 43350/02 received on 9th August 2021.

Reason: To ensure that the site is not proliferated with a significant number of buildings which would have a negative visual impact on the sensitive character and appearance of the site and the AONB. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

8. Agricultural use (additional)

The agricultural storage barn hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the agricultural use of the wider application site. It shall not be let, sold or disposed of separately from the main dwelling known as Eddington Mill House, Upper Eddington, Hungerford, RG17 0HL.

Reason: To ensure the building remains available for agricultural use and to prevent the creation of a separate planning unit which would conflict with the strategy for the location of new development, and be unacceptable in the interests of ensuring a sustainable pattern of development. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5 and CS1 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

9. Ground levels and finished floor levels (additional)

No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed ground levels, and finished floor levels of the building, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent land. These details are required before development commenced because insufficient information accompanies the application, and the agreed details will affect early construction activities. This condition is applied in accordance with the NPPF, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD (June 2006). A pre-commencement condition because inadequate land ground level details have been submitted with the application.

Supporting documents: