Agenda item

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that Springs Farm was a neighbouring farm that was sometimes used by his own business and on occasion he worked with the applicant. As his interest was a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter however, he would speak on the item as Ward Member.)

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that the applicant was known to her and she had worked with them in the past. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Graham Pask, Emma Webster, Peter Argyle and Alan Law declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied on the item)

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe left the meeting at 6.34pm)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/03195/FULMAJ in respect of the change of use of land from agricultural to equestrian use; associated paddocks and bridge; and retrospective application for stable block, manége, track, and 4 staff flats in stables.

Michael Butler introduced the report to Members’ of the Committee, which recommended conditional approval, and ran through the key points. Over ten letters of objection had been received. It was a retrospective application for change of use from agricultural to equestrian.

Mr Butler reminded Members that fencing was not for consideration by the Committee as it was covered by Permitted Development Rights (PDR). He suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application then they might wish to consider removing PDR on the site.

Mr Butler highlighted that footpath issues were a main area of public concern as there were ongoing rights of way issues relating to the site. In recommending the application for approval, Officers’ considered that this would in no way compromise future decisions taken by the Council on the site, regarding footpath issues. 

Regarding the objection raised by the Environment Agency, Mr Butler stated that following a telephone conversation during the week, he was confident that concerns raised could be overcome.

Mr Butler drew attention to point one on the update sheet and highlighted that the applicant should read Springs Farm Limited and not Mr Otaibi.

Mr Butler drew attention to information on the update sheet with regards to conditions, which detailed that conditions one and seven could be removed. Finally he clarified that information circulated by the applicant’s agent to all Members of the Committee was not ‘new’ information.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Richard Farrow, Parish Council representative, and Lucy White, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Representation

Mr Farrow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was representing the views of Purley on Thames Parish Council.

·         The Parish Council was only objecting to the possibility of commercial use due to the traffic implications this would have.

·         If the application involved any disruption to the existing footpath crossing the site then the Parish Council would object as this process sat outside of the planning application process and would need to be considered under different legislation. It was acknowledged that the application itself did not propose changes to the Rights of Way.

·         The Parish Council supported all eight conditions recommended by West Berkshire Council, if permission was granted.

There were no questions raised by Members.

Agent Representation

Ms Lucy White in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Ms White was a Planning Agent and Town Planner. She reported that the application was the result of extraordinary design work in consultation with West Berkshire Council, Purley on Thames Parish Council and residents.

·         Ms White was pleased to see that the Officer recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission.

·         The application involved a change of use from agricultural to equestrian use for non commercial, private use. A change of use was required so that the land could be used for purposes beyond grazing.

·         The flats contained within the existing stable block had been erected by the former owner of the site.

·         In the previous set of plans the southern paddock of the site had conflicted with a Right of Way. Objections had been raised as a result and therefore revised plans had been submitted following the site visit that did not obscure the Right of Way.

·         Heras fencing had been removed since the site visit and replaced with a suitable alternative.

·         Consultation had taken place with local residents and it had been suggested that they should get in touch if they had concerns about any aspects of the application.

·         The applicant participated in the local community and was committed to being a good landowner and neighbour.

Questions from Members

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that the application was in the name of Springs Farm Limited however, according to his research no company under this name existed in the area. Councillor Bridgman therefore asked Ms White if her client had been credit checked. Ms White confirmed that Springs Farm Limited was provided as part of the details by the applicant. Councillor Bridgman further questioned how the Committee, if minded to do so, could grant permission to an entity that did not exist.  Ms White commented that planning permission applied to the land. Councillor Emma Webster asked if Ms White had received certificates from her client and Ms White confirmed that she had in the name of Springs Farm Limited/Mr Otaibi.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Tim Metcalfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The application in question was purely a retrospective planning application. Every aspect of the application being applied for was already in existence.

·         The site had changed significantly over time. Changes included an all-weather riding track which was once a paddock. Councillor Metcalfe felt that despite the changes the site still looked nice and he had no objection to it.

·         All four of the flats above the stable block had been there for over ten years. He was therefore surprised that the applicant was willing to accept condition four.

·         Councillor Metcalfe expressed his disconcert at comments submitted by the Environment Agency.

·         He felt that the water feature on the site was very attractive and he had no objection to this.

·         Overall, Councillor Metcalfe expressed that he supported the application. The only aspect of the site that he had not been happy with was the heras fencing however, this had now been removed.

·         He noted from the plans that the footpath that had been the same for over 30 years, had now moved to a different line on the plans. Stuart Higgins (Public Rights of Way Officer) had confirmed that the footpath had moved to the correct line. He acknowledged that this was not a planning consideration and would therefore speak to the relevant Officers outside of the meeting on this point.

There were no questions raised by Members.

Members Questions to Officers

Councillor Alan Law noted that if the application was approved it would contradict Planning Policy C5 in the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD), which related to housing for rural workers. He therefore asked if the application was approved if it would be deferred to the District Planning Committee. David Pearson stated that because the flats had been in existence for over 10 years it was unlikely that this would be the case. Members could however vote to reference the application up to the District Planning Committee if they wished.

Councillor Law referred to an application that had been deferred to the District Planning Committee at the last meeting of the Eastern Area Planning Committee in reference to Policy C5. He felt that there seemed to be two interpretations of the same issue. Mr Pearson stated that there were material differences between the two applications. The Chairman stated that this was an issue that needed to be discussed at a senior level outside of the Committee meeting.

Councillor Keith Chopping asked to hear Mr Higgins’ views regarding the Rights of Way in the area. Mr Higgin’s stated that the public footpath PURL1/1 ran across the application site. The footpath had first been detailed on a map in 1954. In the late 1980s landscape changes had taken place at the site and an avenue was added. People using the footpath had become accustomed to walking along the avenue however, the legal line was to the south of the avenue. An application could be submitted to turn the more recent route into a Public Right of Way however, evidence would need to be provided.

Councillor Bridgman referred back to the site visit. Members had stood close to the Heras fencing at the rear of the roadway, which was at a right angle to buildings on the site. There had been a piece of Heras fencing to the right and according the map, the footpath had run directly from the road and straight ahead. It was very apparent at the site visit which track people were using to walk along, which was to the right of the fence. He therefore asked if the new replacement fencing was across the footpath. Mr Butler confirmed that the Heras fencing had been removed and the new fencing followed the line of the definitive Right of Way. Mr Butler reminded Members that the Right of Way was not significant in consideration of the application.

Councillor Bridgman referred to conversations earlier in the meeting concerning the name the application was registered in. He confirmed that Springs Farm Limited was registered in Guernsey. He also used the opportunity to commend the quality of the Officer’s report regarding the application in question.

Councillor Webster referred back to comments that the objection by the Environment Agency had been removed. She was concerned that no conditions were included within the report or update sheet to reflect this. Mr Butler confirmed that he had not yet had sight of any conditions however, if the application was approved it would be subject to conditions recommended by the Environment Agency.

Debate

Councillor Chopping proposed that he was willing to support the application. In his view it was a splendid facility and location and the site had been beautifully designed and constructed. He commented regarding his aversion to the network rail line and overhead power lines for electrification, which had been located close to the site with little sympathy for the countryside or the beautiful Goring Gap, which they cut through. He felt that the application under consideration was acceptable and therefore proposed that Members approve the application subject to the changes in conditions noted in the update sheet and any conditions submitted by the Environment Agency.

Councillor Chopping’s proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly. Councillor Crumly noted that 49 letters of objection had been received and had largely concerned fencing around the footpath. The footpath was however a separate issue and not for discussion as part of the application and he therefore expressed his support for the application.

Councillor Webster expressed her frustration with the application. She recalled comments made regarding the applicants efforts to work constructively with the local community however, the best way to demonstrate this was to be constructive. Councillor Webster sympathised with the fears of the community when the applicants had submitted two application within two years.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Chopping and seconded by Councillor Crumly.

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

Conditions

1. The development shall not be brought into use until the vehicle parking and/or turning space have been surfaced and provided in accordance with the approved plan(s).  The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or 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 imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

2.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 as amended, or any subsequent revisions or alterations, within the red line application site, no further enclosures up to 2m in height of any kind shall be erected without the express permission from the local planning authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason:  To ensure future enclosures are controlled, in the interests of visual impact, in accord with policy ADPP5 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026, and the advice in the NPPF on the protection of the AONB landscape.

3.  All of the 5 staff flats hereby permitted by this approval in the existing stables, shall only be occupied by employees of the Springs Farm Estate, and their dependents, and by no other occupant.

Reason:  The Council is not satisfied that the approval of non-restricted C3 accommodation in this location is justified, having regard to the advice in policy C5 in the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document of 2017. Accordingly the accommodation must be restricted in the manner noted.

4.  The development must be carried out in strict accord with the following amended plans dated 22nd January 2019 on the file -:all by Morse Webb - job number 568. 020-PLO4, 050-PLO4, 004-PLO2, 021-PLO3. Plus 002-PL00.  In addition plan numbers [all job 568] 003-PL100, 004-PL100, 010-PLO3, 011-PLO2, 030 to 44 inclusive all PLO2, and 060 and 061 plus 070-PL02 are the approved as existing and proposed plans, hereby permitted.

Reason:  To provide clarity in the permission in accord with the advice in the DMPO of 2015.

5.     At no time shall any of the equestrian uses, operations, stable buildings hereby be permitted to be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever, but must remain in private equestrian  recreational use attached to the Springs Farm estate.

Reason:  To control future intensity of activity on the site having regard to the rural setting of the site and its sensitive nature in accord with policy ADPP5 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026.

6.    The lighting hereby permitted at the manege shall be turned off at 8pm every night at the latest and not turned on until 7am at the earliest the following day, if required, over the winter months.

Reason:  The manege lies in the rural area in the AONB and it is necessary to control future light pollution, in accord with the advice in the NPPF.