Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of use of land to permanent storage of cars (B8) on site E.
Location:	Land at former GAMA site, Greenham Common
Applicant:	Mr D Arnold – Flying A Services
Officer Recommendation:	The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission.

 

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was good friends with Councillor Julian Swift-Hook who had campaigned against the applications. However, he had not predetermined the applications and would make a decision based on the evidence presented at the meeting. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Gordon Lundie declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the Executive Member for Culture and Leisure. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that she had been lobbied on the applications. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Sarah Clarke declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors was known to her. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined that this would not preclude her from providing legal advice to the Committee on the matter).

The Committee considered reports (Agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3)) concerning Planning Applications 10/02001/FUL, 10/02005/COMIND, and 10/02006/COMIND for the change of use of land to permanent storage of cars (B8) on Site E on the land at the former GAMA site, Greenham Common, the removal of Condition 6 on planning permission reference No. 08/01146/COMIND and the removal of condition 6 on planning permission reference No. 08/01150/COMIND respectively.

The Chairman of the Committee advised that agenda items 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) would be discussed together due to the fact that they all related to the movement of temporary to permanent car storage. However, the applications would all be voted upon separately and would be minuted as such.

The Chairman of the Committee also proposed that in accordance with paragraph 7.13.4 of the Constitution the total time allowed for speaking should be extended from 5 minutes to 10 minutes for each party due to the fact that all three applications were being considered together. The Committee agreed to this proposal.

The Planning Officer in introducing the report stated that following an Article 25 Direction from the Secretary of State, the Council had been directed to refer the application for possible determination to the Secretary of State should the Committee resolution be one of approval. If the Committee were minded to refuse the application the decision notice could be issued without referral. Greenham Parish Council had been the third party objector who had formally requested the call in and a copy of their letter of 14^th January 2011 was attached as an appendix to the Update Sheet.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. Tony Forward, Parish Council Representative, Dr. Andrew Brown and Mr. Chris Welch (English Heritage), objectors, Mr. Philip Demonte, supporter, Mr. David Arnold, Mr. Andrew Raven and Mr. Julian Munby (Oxford Archaeology), applicant/agents, addressed the Committee in respect of the three applications.

Mr. Forward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        The site was a cold and barren one and it remained basically as it was during operational times where little was to be seen on the ground as the majority of activity was carried out in the bunkers and under ground. Mr. Forward felt that this was the aspect that the scheduling wished to preserve as it would also respect the adjacent common and the Site of Special Scientific Interest within the site;

·        The site was of global significance as it reminded people of the potential cataclysmic end the planet could have had if the Cold War had escalated. The site at Greenham Common had been the first operational facility, with a total of only six in the whole of Europe, and therefore this site was the spearhead of brinkmanship of the Cold War and the only one which was fully operational in the UK;

·        As part of the scheduling  process the Secretary of State had made it clear to the purchasers the significance of the site and what uses would be permitted and examples of what would not. A letter had been sent to inform purchasers of restrictions on site uses and there were four uses which had been explicitly named as unlikely to obtain permission – wind farms, flammable storage, light industrial and permanent car storage;

·        The applicant was now applying for permanent car storage on the site and was advertising the bunkers and extensive underground area as light industrial;

·        In around 2003 New Greenham Park and Castle Windows had put in a bid for the use of the site as low key storage in all but one bunker and to retain the ethos of the remainder of the site by perhaps grazing rare breeds. This bid had been costed to provide sufficient funds to maintain the site with services and security which would have been provided from the nearby New Greenham Park;

·        The current owner had put in a similar bid with similar promises but had offered considerably more money. However, having won the bid within a year they had decided that they could not achieve what they had promised without some initial funding – hence the temporary planning permission which had reluctantly been granted;

·        The applicant had stated that they could not attract a temporary user for the site but just down the road at New Greenham Park such a temporary use for car storage had been set up and there appeared to have been no collaboration with organisations such as New Greenham Park;

·        Mr. Forward stated that to bring the storage use into operation the applicant would need to spend £250k on the A339 junction improvements alone which would not be required for the heritage proposed uses. This sum could have been used for the maintenance if a suitable use was  found;

·        The applications did not provide a guarantee of any of the verbal promises made by the applicant and would not be legally binding on the current owner or on any subsequent purchaser;

·        The draft five year policy produced by West Berkshire Council called HEAP explicitly included the GAMA site;

·        The site was scheduled  as being important but was not considered to be heritage at risk and therefore there was still time to consider the right course of action;

·        The applicant had stated that his needs had to be met but Planning Policy PPS5 provided guidance which favoured respecting the terms of the scheduling of the monument and stated quite clearly that the greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that would be needed to justify approval;

·        Both English Heritage and the Council’s own archaeologist were of the opinion that this application would harm the monument;

·        PPS5 also stated that “local planning authorities should require the applicant to provide evidence that other potential owners or users of the site had been sought through appropriate marketing and that reasonable endeavours had been made to seek grant funding for the heritage asset’s conservation and to find charitable or public authorities willing to take on the heritage asset;

·        Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments, should be wholly exceptional;

·        Mr. Forward stated that although this site was not ancient history it was very poignant of recent history and reminded us of what might have been and the efforts of those who had fought and won freedom in the face of tyranny and adversity;

·        History was not made overnight but was a vital part of the country’s heritage no matter how recent and Mr. Forward felt that the monument should not be compromised to satisfy the apparent commercial failure to honour the commitment made to the Secretary of State at the time of the purchase of the site.

Members queried whether a different owner of the site would still require the roadworks to be undertaken or whether an alternative access would be provided across the Common. Mr. Forward responded that the access would still be via Brackenhurst Lane and that improvements to the junction would not be required for the current temporary permission or for a Museum.

Councillor Brian Bedwell noted that Greenham Parish Council had not attended the Western Area Planning Committee on 8^th December 2010 when the application was first considered. Mr. Forward stated that a full mandate was required by the Parish Council in order to appoint a member to speak at a Planning Committee and due to tight timescales that had not been possible. Councillor Bedwell felt that this was an issue which would have been experienced by the majority of Parish Councils at various times.

Councillor Paul Bryant stated that this site was a scheduled ancient monument and over the years the site had become overgrown. He felt that funding had to be identified in order to maintain it otherwise the site would decay further. It was considered that temporary commercial use was not viable but it was necessary to fully investigate all options to show that funding had been sought for the protection of this heritage asset.

Dr. Andrew Brown and Mr. Chris Welch (English Heritage) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Dr. Brown was the English Heritage Regional Director for the South East and he stressed the importance that English Heritage attached to the site;

·        This was the first time that English Heritage had addressed the Planning Committee on this issue. English Heritage were Government advisors whose role was to give objective and rational advice on applications which affected heritage sites and where it was necessary to balance operational demands against the protection of the environment;

·        English Heritage felt that it was necessary to ask three questions:

Was the GAMA site important?

Were the proposals harmful?

What would happen instead?

·        In answer to question one – following a survey 30 sites had been given statutory protection following the Cold War. However, the GAMA site at Greenham Common had been considered to be an iconic site during the final stages of the Cold War and had therefore been designated as a scheduled monument. This signalled that it was a site of national and international importance and the asset was under the stewardship of West Berkshire Council to maintain and protect;

·        Dr. Brown confirmed that English Heritage had supported the use of the land for car storage but only on a temporary basis. The temporary use would have allowed the owners of the site to raise capital from the commercial sector to enhance the site. The use of the site for permanent car storage would diminish how the site was viewed in the future and would undermine the character of the bunkers;

·        In respect of the vision for the site it was felt that this was a potential flagship heritage site for the country. No other site within the United Kingdom had the global reach of Greenham Common and it was therefore an excellent location for a Cold War Museum. The maintenance costs could be offset by allowing an income generating use on the site but only if that use was not harmful to the character and appearance of the site. English Heritage would gladly work closely with the applicant to look at the best way of operating the site;

·        English Heritage considered that the scheme would cause substantial harm to the monument and was therefore clearly contrary to Policy HE9.1 and 2 in PPS5 as no wholly exceptional case had been promoted to allow the new use in question;

·        Policy PPS5 set out a range of criteria which should be met before applications causing substantial harm to a monument might be allowed in principle and English Heritage felt that none of the criteria were satisfied in this case and therefore the application should be refused.

Members queried the fact that if there was no harm to the site for a 10 year permission what would be the harm for a permanent permission. English Heritage felt that the temporary permission would be harmful but that this would be worthwhile if capital could be raised to prevent the site from deteriorating or to fund the Cold War Museum. In other words, there would be an element of short term pain for long term gain.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld queried whether English Heritage was offering to pay to look after the site and what the implications were of not looking after it. He also had concerns in respect of health and safety on the site. Mr. Welch confirmed that the site as a whole had been scheduled as a monument and all the infrastructure within the fence was of equal importance. It was the responsibility of the owner to fund the maintenance of the site but English Heritage could assist the owner via a Management Agreement which would identify a low key way to make the site viable. English Heritage managed around 400 sites and were used to challenges. The sensible way to ensure the safety of the site was by risk management rather than restricting entrance to the area.

Councillor Keith Woodhams queried whether by supporting a ten year temporary use this had set a dangerous precedent for the permanent use of the site for car storage. Dr. Brown responded that English Heritage had shown flexibility in working with the owners of the site in an attempt to raise capital. However, when the site was originally marketed in 2003 one of the specific uses that was identified as being unlikely to be acceptable was permanent car storage. Therefore the present owners would have been fully aware of this prior to purchasing the site in question. 

Councillor Roger Hunneman asked English Heritage what advice had been given to the applicants. Dr. Brown confirmed that there had been a long exchange of correspondence/discussions between 2005 to 2009 until those discussions had ceased to be productive. E-mail exchanges had subsequently taken place on a monthly basis where various options had been explored and boundary lines had been drawn. A Heritage Lottery grant had been explored but the owners had not been willing to put the site into public ownership which would have enabled them to access such grants.

Councillor Alan Law asked the representatives from English Heritage why they had not attended the Western Area Planning Committee meeting in December 2010 if they were so passionate about the site at Greenham Common. Dr. Brown responded that English Heritage had to trust local authorities to make sound and balanced judgements as it was not possible for representatives to attend every Planning meeting. 

Mr. Demonte in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr. Demonte was an American veteran who had arrived at Greenham Common in May 1988 and had been one of the last Americans to leave the site;

·        Mr. Demonte stated that the local authority had had a chance to do something with the Base when the Ministry of Defence had handed over the site in September 1992;

·        Greenham Common was not associated with the local area as there were no plaques on the site stating that it was of historical interest or which recognised the heroism which had been shown by the American Air Force;

·        In 1991 the site had been opened up to help disadvantaged children;

·        The GAMA site had been designed to withstand a nuclear blast;

·        There was support both from this country and abroad for a Cold War Museum on the site which would create jobs for the area.

Mr. Arnold, Mr. Raven and Mr. Munby (Oxford Archaeology), in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr. Raven reported that the applicants required a degree of income in order to fund the maintenance of the site;

·        It was noted from the update sheet that the Council’s Countryside Section had provided an estimated cost figure of £3k for the annual maintenance of the GAMA site (excluding security). Information had been provided by the applicant’s agents which indicated that if a 24 hour security cover were to be provided on the site this would cost in the region of £300k per annum;

·        English Heritage had not found any alternative uses for the site over the last three years and indeed the applicant had written to English Heritage on 10^th December 2010 to ascertain whether there had been any other marketing opportunities or grants available but they had not responded to date;

·        The ten year temporary permission for car storage had been granted to allow the applicant to look at alternative uses but to date no alternatives had been identified and no indication had been given by the local authority or English Heritage as to where else they could look;

·        Mr. Raven stated that PPS5 provided that consent could be granted if no alternative uses could be found and it was therefore felt that the criteria could be met;

·        Mr. Munby recognised that this was an important site and it had not been purchased as a development opportunity;

·        The applicant believed that the maintenance of the site was an important issue but felt that some areas within the site were more important than others. The bunkers were visible from outside the fence and this was a key part of the site. Other areas were not such a prime part of the site and it was felt that the storage of cars on these areas would create a low level imposition on the site which would not cause permanent damage. This use would provide a realistic income stream which would be used to protect and maintain the site.

Councillor Keith Woodhams queried why the applicant had not researched the costs of maintenance and security of the site prior to purchase to ensure that it was affordable. When the applicant had purchased the site English Heritage had been aware that it was proposed to use the site for car storage on a temporary basis. The applicant had run the site for eight years now and was well aware of what the site could and could not be used for. The representative from English Heritage had not been on the site for at least six years. Mr. Raven advised that it was proposed to store approximately 6,000 cars on the site as a result of the three applications and a condition of any permission would mean that the applicant would be required to agree the layout of the site with the local authority. If the site was not used for the storage of cars then it could be used for storage of other materials but there was a restriction on road access for B1 or B8 use. The access restricted the volume of car/vehicle movements. The applicant had tried to find a commercial use of the site which would have the least impact but which would also attract a significant income stream to provide funding for maintenance.

Members queried the figures provided for the maintenance of the site and asked what the daily number of vehicle movements would be if there were 6,000 cars stored on the site. The Planning Officer clarified that the total cost might be in the region of £350k per annum and this figure encompassed the maintenance and security of the site. However no actual evidence to substantiate this figure had been provided by the applicants despite Officer requests.  Mr. Raven advised that there would be a maximum of 20 vehicle movements per day but that would include a car transporter.

Councillor Pamela Bale asked for clarification on the bodies which had been approached for funding and what their response had been. The applicant confirmed that he had looked at the requirements of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Trust, New Greenham Park and Greenham Common Trust had all been approached for funding. However, charities were often willing to provide a one-off payment but would not fund an annual income. The Heritage Lottery Fund had not been approached as clear criteria of what they would and would not fund was set out on the website. Research had shown that grants would not be available for the GAMA site and only charitable bodies could apply for certain funding.

Councillor Tony Vickers referred to several e-mails he had received after a Western Area Planning Committee a number of years ago and wondered what had been done since to engage with local Members to try and obtain their support. The applicant confirmed that if a permanent permission was obtained for the storage of cars then the next application which would need to be considered at a Planning Committee would be for a Museum building.

Councillor Hilary Cole noted that there had been no uptake for the temporary permission for the storage of cars on the site and she queried whether a customer had been identified for the permanent permission. The applicant confirmed that there had been a very strong interest and a letter of intent had been received.

It was queried why a 10 year temporary permission had not provided a viable income. Mr. Raven responded that there was uncertainty around what would happen after the 10 year period and how the Museum could be maintained after that date. With a permanent permission assurances about the long term position of the site would be clearer. Councillor Anthony Stansfeld stated that what was worrying was the word “permanent” and he asked for clarification as to what would be considered as a viable period. This would at least give the authority some security that the use could be changed after that period but would also allow the applicant sufficient time to come up with alternative uses.

Councillor Julian Swift-Hook, as Ward Member, submitted a petition which stated that “We, the undersigned, call upon West Berkshire Council to follow the clear and unambiguous advice of English Heritage, the Council’s own Conservation Officer, and the Council’s own Planning Officers, and to REFUSE planning permission for the permanent storage of cars on this historic site, a Scheduled Ancient Monument of international significance.” The petition contained 542 signatories with 237 of those from West Berkshire postcodes. The remainder were from the rest of the UK and some from further afield in other countries which reinforced the international significance of this site.

Councillor Swift-Hook advised the Committee that the site was the only fully operational cruise missile base in the UK, Molesworth being active but not fully operational. It was also the focus of the single longest anti-nuclear protest in the country during the 1980s  and many local residents had supported the Women’s Peace Camp during that period. Many of the legal battles that had been pursued were key in returning Greenham Common to public ownership and returning much of the area to public open space. Councillor Swift-Hook concluded that the redundant base was unique and accordingly should be provided with the highest protection which was why it had been scheduled by English Heritage in March 2003. It was important to keep the site as close to its original condition as possible and this was why it was not considered appropriate to cover the site with cars.  He queried why the current owner of the site had not recognised all that had happened on the site in some way. The attendance of English Heritage at this Committee meeting was key as it was a public body which had statutory powers to prevent historic monuments being destroyed by commercial ventures.

Councillor Swift-Hook queried who actually owned the site, Mr. Arnold or Flying A Services. The applicant argued that permission should be granted for the permanent storage of cars on the site in order to provide a Cold War Museum. Councillor Swift-Hook was of the opinion that the applicant had applied for permanent permission as he was running out of money and this was not a planning consideration. The applicant had bought the site with the full knowledge of what was and what was not allowed on the site. There had been others bidding for the site at the time, such as Greenham Common Trust, and the maintenance and security of the site was clearly an issue which the owner of the site could no longer fund. The Cold War Museum was an aspiration for the site but was not actually a reality. Councillor Swift-Hook referred to Aviation Heritage which was a company that had been owned by Mr. Arnold’s father and he questioned the integrity and commercial track record of the company. The Chairman of the Committee and the Council’s Solicitor advised Councillor Swift-Hook that the points raised previously were not a planning matter which was relevant to the application and should therefore be disregarded. Councillor Swift-Hook apologised and stated that his comments were not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, however, the key issue was that Members might possibly be swayed by empty promises and issues which were not related to planning. There was nothing to bind the applicant to maintain the site or to provide a museum and therefore there could be no realistic expectation that the museum would be delivered in the future. If the applicant was unable to get the temporary car storage off the ground then Councillor Swift-Hook felt that Greenham Common Trust would be open to an approach to maintain the site as had originally been proposed.

Councillor Swift-Hook advised that the applicant would be able to sell the site to another commercial user at any time after permanent permission for car storage had been granted. The applicant ran an aviation heritage business and Councillor Swift-Hook could therefore not understand why a museum on the GAMA site could not be funded from that. Councillor Swift-Hook stated that he would love to see a Cold War museum on the site but not at any cost.

In response to a query the Planning Officer advised that Scheduled Monument Consent would be required for any additional areas of hardstanding. The applicant was waiting to see if planning permission was granted before applying for that consent. Councillor Swift-Hook confirmed that at the site visit the applicant had pointed out the additional areas which would need to be hardstanding.

Councillor Royce Longton queried to what extent maintenance costs were a planning issue. The Planning Officer confirmed that they were a valid material consideration as the future integrity of the monument was a material consideration.

It was noted that the temporary permission had a life span of 10 years and Members queried whether that time was already running. The Planning Officer confirmed that the 10 year period would only commence when the permission was implemented but the temporary permission would lapse in September 2011. Councillor Paul Bryant queried what the conditions had been on the original application. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was a list of suggested conditions and apologised for not including them on the Update Sheet. Councillor Tony Vickers queried whether there had been a condition in respect of screening around the site. The Planning Officer advised that he could not recall a specific condition in respect of screening although there had been one around landscaping.

Councillor Brian Bedwell noted that the Parish Council had referred to letters from the Secretary of State and he asked if the Council had had copies of those letters. The Planning Officer confirmed that the letters did exist and would have been advisories on the sale of the land. There was no date on the letter but it did set out the uses of the site that the Secretary of State considered would be unsuitable such as a wind farm, light Industrial use, permanent car storage or storage of flammable materials within the shelters.

Councillor Keith Woodhams queried whether consideration had been given to including a condition in respect of floodlighting of the secure area. The Planning Officer advised that if planning permission were to be granted then there would be an expectation that CCTV and floodlighting should be provided. The Planning Officer also confirmed that if planning permission was granted then it would not be a personal consent and that Councillor Swift-Hook had been correct that the applicant could sell the site with no obligation to build a museum. In response to a query it was clarified that extending the temporary permission to a period of say 25 years would in effect be classified as a permanent consent.

Councillor Brian Bedwell felt that the Council had a duty to protect such a valuable site. The idea of storing 6,000 cars on the site was ridiculous and transporters would be in and out of the site all day using a country lane which was totally inappropriate. He therefore proposed that the Committee should support the Officers’ recommendation of refusal. Councillor Royce Longton seconded the proposal as he too felt that this site was totally inappropriate for the storage of such a large number of cars on a permanent basis. Councillor Keith Woodhams referred to page 65 of the report and in particular paragraph 6.2.2 which stated that English Heritage maintained that an indefinite use on the site would cause substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld felt that the whole of Greenham Common was an historic site and hardly any of it had been preserved. The GAMA site was particularly historic and would be there in perpetuity and Councillor Stansfeld was concerned that the site would fall into disrepair and would be under threat of vandalism if the site was not maintained or secured. This would be the risk if the permission was not granted as there was no substantive revenue funding forthcoming. The bunkers themselves were a major health and safety issue as they had vertical drops straight onto concrete which could be a danger to children. If the Council were not careful then they would be left with the maintenance and security of the site which it could not afford in the current climate.

Councillor Gordon Lundie confirmed that he was the Portfolio Holder for heritage and recognised that the site had a level of significance both locally and nationally. He had recently taken his children to see this Cold War site and felt that it would be a shame if other people could not do the same thing in the future. There had been a number of casualties as a result of the Cold War but there was currently no monument to mark the loss of life as a result of the war. Councillor Lundie agreed that something needed to be done to provide an income stream in order to maintain the site but the proposal for a permanent use of the site for car storage was an issue. He felt that the applicant was genuine in his intentions but that it was necessary to work with the Council to try and find an alternative solution. 

Councillor Alan Law agreed that this site had a significant heritage importance and many people would like to see a museum but the key issue was how that was achieved. The Committee would need to judge the application before them against the planning policies but Councillor Law felt that this application was contrary to a number of Council policies such as PPS5 and Policy ENV38 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and Policy BE6 in the South East Plan 2009, and should therefore be rejected.

During the course of considering the application a motion to support the Officer’s recommendation of refusal was proposed by Councillor Brian Bedwell and seconded by Councillor Royce Longton. The motion was carried by 10 votes to 2. Councillor Anthony Stansfeld asked for his vote not to support the motion to be recorded.

The District Planning Committee resolved to REFUSE the planning application as submitted for the following reason:

The GAMA site comprises a Scheduled Monument of national significance in relation to the Cold War era. It is also located adjacent to the Greenham and Crookham Commons which is a substantial countryside and open recreational asset for the District and its population. The open storage of cars on site E on a permanent basis would not only be  harmful to the understanding and visual setting of the monument, to its overall serious detriment, but also to the setting of the adjacent Common and its users again to the detriment of the overall enjoyment of that countryside asset. Accordingly the application is clearly contrary to the advice in PPS5, policy ENV38 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and policy BE6 in the South East Plan 2009, and so should be rejected.