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

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 20/00540/FUL, Trabbs Farm, Seven Barrows, Lambourn

Proposal:

General purpose agricultural storage building to allow storage of grain; other agricultural products; and farm machinery.

 

Location:

Trabbs Farm, Seven Barrows, Lambourn.

 

Applicant:

E F Walters Ltd.

 

Recommendation:

To DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions.

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor James Cant declared a person interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum and was until recently a member of the Ramblers Association Committee for West Berkshire and since all applications are adjacent to public rights of way, this interest was relevant. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied in respect of the application.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00540/FUL in respect of the erection of a general purpose agricultural storage building to allow storage of grain; other agricultural products; and farm machinery.

2.            Councillor Clive Hooker noted that the application had been referred to committee due to more than 10 letters of objection being received.

3.            Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and it was recommended to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

4.            Paul Goddard was invited to provide observations on highway matters relating to the application. He noted the internal layout and access onto the highway were acceptable. He remarked that the short section of road connecting to the B4001 was relatively narrow for HGVs and he noted the objections from the racehorse industry. However, he stated that the site would attract just 18 HGV trips per year (nine to and nine from the site, so the impact would not be severe. Therefore the Highways Authority had no objection.

Removal of Speaking Rights

5.            As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had been replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

6.            In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution written submissions had been received from Lambourn Parish Council, Nick Lawrence, Sue and Mike Lawrence, Robert Hall and Nicky Henderson, objectors and Robert Prescott, agent.

7.            The written submission were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Parish Council Representation

Lambourn Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds:

1.    It will have an intrusive and unnecessary visual impact on the AONB. The proposed construction is large and not well-related to the other buildings on the site. Since one existing barn is being removed, it could be built close to the older buildings and not in such a visible position.

2.    The site is at risk of flooding, particularly from ground water.

3.    The increase in heavy traffic on the narrow road.

8.            In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, as multiple parties had made written submissions, an officer has provided a summary of the issues raised. The full submissions were made available to the Members of the Committee, and have been published alongside the Agenda for this meeting.

Objectors’ Representation

Officer’s summary of the written submissions of Nick Lawrence, Sue and Mike Lawrence, Robert Hall and Nicky Henderson, objectors.

There is much local ill-feeling and opposition to this development which would result in a permanent blot on the landscape. The new building would be highly visible from the road and surrounding vistas and is to be used as a commercial storage building for items from over 20 miles away. It brings no benefit or employment to the local area and the applicant does not even live locally. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that this development could act as a springboard for further unnecessary development. This development is inappropriate given the open character of the area and we question whether the AONB Management Plan for West Berkshire has been applied in this case. It is not acceptable for the new building to be set away from the existing farmstead, which blends well into the landscape, and insufficient justification for the need for such a large building has been provided within the document supporting the application. The existing hedging will do nothing to screen the new building. This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and it is incomprehensible that a large commercial building be allowed to be built in the middle of it.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty”. Is this being followed?

If the development is to be built, albeit a much smaller version, there must be a condition that no grain dryer is installed at a later date. A large number of racehorses are trained in the immediate area and a grain dryer would have a hugely detrimental effect on the air quality of the three racing stables nearby.

Lambourn is known as the Valley of the Racehorse and the racehorse industry is the largest employer. The vehicle movements stated appear to be a gross underestimate and there is significant concern over road safety is this development were allowed. The narrow roads of Lambourn are not suited to HGV traffic and additional vehicle movements would cause congestion. Moreover, the surrounding roads are regularly used by children, riders, staff of the racing yards and valuable horses and the lane is too narrow for a truck and car to pass. Large grain lorries would be a significant hazard for those that currently use this lane in relative safety. These large vehicles would also bring noise pollution.

The development sits next to a road that floods during heavy rain and opposite a field that floods due to local springs. The French drains and soakaways proposed will not work due to the water table being so close to ground level. The local residents have experienced this flooding themselves and the Council have a duty of care when considering this matter.

The local residents firmly object to this development which will bring noise and traffic pollution, road safety issues and which would be extremely unsightly and inappropriate development. Please protect this area of outstanding natural beauty.

Agent’s Submission

Written by Robert Prescott, agent.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for letting us make a representation to committee.

The comments I now make seek to avoid repetition of the case officer’s report. However, I would reiterate the point that the store is necessary for our client’s farm business as a whole, to serve other land parcels as well as that at Trabbs Farm. Moreover, without a store at Trabbs Farm, the land could not function in farming terms. As the officer has stated, it is not practical to utilise any of the existing buildings on the farm.

This application closely follows the advice received from the Council as part of the pre-application process, which was fundamental in ensuring the best location on the site was promoted, and guided design and materials.

We are only too aware of the national importance of the landscape character of the area. So much so that we suggested that the council’s external landscape adviser should be consulted. We have liaised with her through the case officer to make appropriate modifications and designed a scheme that, as the report states, “it is considered that the proposed design and planting scheme would ensure this new agricultural building would sit comfortably within the landscape”.

Our client is very keen to ensure that the building and the future operations on the farm do not damage the visual amenity of his neighbours. He therefore met the occupants of the nearest properties to both North and South prior to the application being submitted. At that time, neither expressed any concerns. In the light of subsequent concerns being expressed, Mr Walters met the occupants of Trabbs Farmhouse to discuss the proposals, and the plans before the committee, dated 6th July 2020, reflect modifications made as a result of the discussions.

In short, this is an essential farm building for good husbandry of the land, to allow for food production. Its location close to the road both allows efficient farm operations and respects the character of the AONB and neighbours’ amenity. We hope you will support the officer’s recommendation and approve the application, with necessary conditions.

Ward Member Representation

9.            Councillor Howard Woollaston in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·                     He had visited the site and saw no reason not to follow the officer’s recommendation.

·                     The applicant had followed pre-application advice to the letter as well as subsequent requirements from the Council’s landscape consultants.

·                     The current buildings were not fit for purpose and were more problematic for the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) than the proposed one and should be demolished, in his view. The existing buildings could not meet the legitimate needs of the applicant.

·                     The new proposal fitted in well within the landscape and the colour scheme would blend in, particularly when planting developed.

·                     Mr Walters was a genuine working farmer with tenancies at several other farms in the area. Councillor Woollaston suggested that the applicant was not someone who ‘played at farming’ or used it as a tax break.

·                     Although there had been a small number of local objections, these had all been answered in the officer’s report.

·                     This would not be a high intensity use building, with an estimated 18 annual lorry movements with occasional car or light van movements.

·                     The site would only be used for storage of farm machinery and seasonal grain storage with no dryer, so there would be no noise, and light pollution would be negligible.

·                     Agriculture was an integral part of the countryside and should be encouraged.

·                     He invited members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

10.         Members were invited to ask questions of the Ward Member. Councillor Adrian Abbs asked where the other plots of land referred to in the report were.

11.         Councillor Woollaston did not know exactly, but indicated that they were all in the western part of the district with the exception of one in South Oxfordshire.

12.         Councillor Abbs indicated that some were 20 miles away and thought that this was a long way to sit behind a tractor. He also highlighted that an existing barn was to be removed. While he recognised that the existing barns were in the middle of an open field, he suggested that replacing an existing barn might be a better option than building a new one in a different location of the field.

13.         Councillor Woollaston indicated that there were two barns; the Dutch barn with open sides was to be demolished, and the other had eaves that were too low to be used for farm machinery. He indicated that one barn had some historical interest and was being reviewed, but in his view it was an eyesore and was also further towards the valley bottom.

14.         Councillor Phil Barnett asked about comments made in relation to HGV traffic.  He noted that the farm opposite had a lot of HGV movements and indicated that this was already using local roads.

15.         Councillor Woollaston indicated that there were significant numbers of HGVs already using the B4001, which was only a few hundred yards from the site.

Questions to Officers

16.         Members were invited to ask questions of the officers. Councillor Abbs asked Simon Till if a barn was being removed, why it could not be replaced in the same location.

17.         Simon Till replied that he could not force the applicant’s business decisions. He indicated that the applicant had engaged in pre-application advice and that he had been directed to the area of least impact on the site. He confirmed that advice had been sought from the landscape consultant and this was the preferred location for the barn, and would result in less visual intrusion than if it were sited where the existing buildings were located. He noted that the existing buildings had been described as an eyesore by the Ward Member, and this was indicative of their prominent position within the landscape, which the proposed site would not have.

18.         Councillor Vickers asked the Highways Officer about the remarkably low number of vehicle movements and queried if this had been checked and challenged.

19.         Paul Goddard indicated that the size of the building and amount of grain storage had been considered. He stated that the movements would be spread throughout the year. He continued that the applicant would be given the benefit of the doubt, particularly where it was difficult to obtain evidence to the contrary, and suggested that there was little choice but to take this at face value.

20.         Councillor James Cole asked if the 18 movements were related just to grain transport, and indicated that the unit would also be used for storage of machinery, which could account for more movements.

21.         Paul Goddard confirmed that the 18 movements were for grain transport only and other movements could take place, but were unlikely to be significant enough to influence the officer’s decision.

22.         Councillor Culver asked about what would happen if significant archaeological items were found at the site. She also asked why the ecologist had not commented on the application.

23.         Simon Till indicated that the Council’s archaeologist had reviewed the application and that she had identified that there was a potential for archaeological finds. Therefore, she had recommended a condition for a written scheme of investigation to guide the methodology by which archaeology was investigated and finds dealt with. He suggested that there was an outside potential for archaeological finds given how long the site had been farmed, but any finds would be dealt with in an appropriate manner, since it would be under the supervision of the Council’s archaeologist and the applicant’s appointed archaeological contractor. 

24.         In respect of ecology, he stated that the Council’s ecologist had the opportunity to comment. He explained that it was common practice to make comment where there were concerns. Without comments, officers had to make a reasoned determination in regards to what was known about the site. He indicated that although it was within 300m of an SSSI and close to a biodiversity opportunity site, it was not within it.

25.         He confirmed that the land was within regular agricultural use, so harmful ecological impacts were considered to be limited. The habitats regulations were separate legislation to planning, and if protected habitats were discovered then the applicant would have a duty of care to cease construction during nesting or relocate protected species if discovered, with the help of a professional ecologist. Without feedback from the ecologist, the planning officer had made a reasonable judgement.

26.         Councillor James Cole pointed out that horses and large vehicles did not mix well. He indicated that the building would be used for vehicle storage and grain would be transported to the site. He asked about the extent of conflict between horses and vehicles on the narrow access road.

27.         Paul Goddard agreed that horses and large vehicles did not mix well, but noted that vehicle movements would be too low for the Highway Authority to raise objections. He acknowledged that some vehicles could be stored on the site, but indicated that the building was too small for this to be significant. He concluded that there was too little impact on the horse racing industry for officers to object.

28.         Councillor Abbs asked how close the racehorse gallops and stables were to the development.

29.         Simon Till responded that he did not have specific information about proximity, but the lane adjacent to the site was regularly used for the exercise and movement of horses, but he could not comment on the proximity to stable complexes.

30.         Councillor Abbs indicated that he wanted to support rural businesses, but asked officers for their opinion on the net impact if the development were to force a racehorse stable to relocate.

31.         Simon Till indicated that rural businesses could and should coexist with each other. He explained that a condition had been recommended in relation to plant and machinery controls, since noise could jeopardise the safety of horses and riders. However, he stated that the Council had to be reasonable and that the land surrounding the site was predominantly in agricultural use with some equine uses alongside.

32.         He indicated that these uses could and do coexist in line with policies in the Local Plan, to ensure the vitality of rural areas. He stated that in his view, this application did not give rise to unreasonable constraints or concerns to the operation of the racehorse industry in the area. In his view, there was some misunderstanding of the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed development and he suggested that any concerns about plant and machinery could be addressed by condition.

33.         Councillor Jeff Cant stated that he found it frustrating that Members were asking officers to speculate about the relative importance of different rural businesses and whether stables might relocate if this development were approved.

34.         Councillor Clive Hooker indicated that he thought it appropriate to bring these issues up in the debate. He then asked Paul Goddard about articulated lorries using narrow rural roads and asked him to confirm whether he had considered creating passing places, to enable vehicles to pull over and let horses or cars go past.

35.         Paul Goddard indicated that passing places were sought where required. However, he indicated that the link road was 850m long, which was a relatively short length and the number of vehicle movements was too low to justify the provision of passing places. He stated that the grain store was quite small and did not justify improvements to the highway network.

Debate

36.         Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate. She recalled a site visit to a property beyond Trubbs Farm some years ago and noted that there were several scattered properties along this track. She stated that agricultural buildings were functional and farms were commercial enterprises. She suggested that the Council needed to support farms, while being mindful of the horse racing industry. She noted that horses themselves needed to be transported and owners used the lane. She suggested that the 18 lorry movements suggested in the application would be fairly irrelevant and needed to be accepted, since it was a farming community. She highlighted that there were regularly horses in Lambourn and people living there accepted it. She made a proposal to accept the officer’s recommendation. Councillor Vickers seconded the proposal.

37.         Councillor Vickers noted that the applicant had engaged fully with the planning service. He stated that he had visited the site, including the Seven Barrows nature reserve. He considered that there was no reason for racehorses to use the 800m stretch of road to travel between stables and gallops and suggested that any conflict with lorries and racehorses was a red herring. He also indicated that he could not see how the site could be flooded since it was not in the valley bottom. He suggested that the application could improve the landscape if the existing buildings could come down.

38.         Councillor Barnett indicated that he had no problem passing other vehicles when he visited the site. He commented that the verges might be softer in winter, but thought it would not be a problem. He noted that he could see the whole length of the road and could see all on-coming vehicles.

39.         Councillor James Cole indicated that there was a difference between drivers who were and were not horse aware. However, he indicated that this was a genuine agricultural application for a barn that was unlikely to be converted to a dwelling at a later date. He indicated that if the movements were genuine then he could not object to the application.

40.         Councillor Abbs agreed that there was no evidence to support the objections.

41.         Councillor Hooker noted that no additional conditions were being sought over and above those listed in the agenda.

RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions

Conditions

1.            Commencement

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 listed below:

·         Drawing title: Plans and Elevations received on 27 February 2020

·         Drawing titles: Location Plan; Block Plan; Site Plan; Visibility Splays; Landscape Plan received 6 July 2020.

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

3.            Materials

The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans, application forms and within the planning statement received 27th February 2020.

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 and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

4.            Gates

Any gates to be provided at the new access, shall open away from the adjoining highway and be set back a distance of at least 16 metres from the edge of the highway.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and to ensure that vehicles can be driven off the highway before the gates are opened. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

5.            Visibility Splays

No development shall take place until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 215 metres have been provided at the access. The visibility splays shall, thereafter, be kept free of all obstructions to visibility above a height of 0.6 metres above carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests of road safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

6.            Appearance of Site Access and Gates

No development above ground level shall take place until full details of the visual appearance of access into the site and gates 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 that the access and gates are appropriate to the rural character of the area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

7.            Parking

The development shall not be brought into use until the vehicle parking and turning space have been surfaced and provided in accordance with the approved plan. The parking and turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking 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, 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).

8.            Archaeology

No site works shall take place within the application area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason: To ensure that any significant archaeological remains that are found are adequately recorded. This is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

9.            Construction

No construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

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

·         8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

·         nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

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

10.         Fences, Gates or Walls

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or an order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the red line curtilage of the application site as shown on drawing title: Location Plan received 6th July 2020 without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority through the submission of a planning application made for that purpose.

Reason: To protect the rural character of the surrounding landscape. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

11.         Lighting

If any alterations are proposed to be made to the external lighting of the site, an external lighting plan should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority by way of a formal application to discharge this condition.

Reason: To ensure that the lighting of the site is appropriate given the surrounding landscape character and rural nature of this site which is located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

12.         Plant

No plant shall be installed on site until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application. The plant and measures to minimise the effect of noise shall be installed prior to the operation of the plant in accordance with the approved details. Details of the plant shall include:

(a) written details of the plant associated with the development including:

(i) the proposed number and location of such plant as well as the manufacturer's information and specifications

(ii) the acoustic specification of the plant including general sound levels and frequency analysis under conditions likely to be experienced in practice.

(iii) the intended operating times.

(b) The findings of a noise survey to determine noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed development and calculations showing the likely impact of noise from the development;

(c) a scheme of works or such other steps as may be necessary to minimize the effects of noise from the development.

Reason: To protect the amenity of residents and nearby land users in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

13.         AONB

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 6 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: In the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area which is located in a sparely developed area within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

14.         Landscaping

All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plan, planting mix, and planting and maintenance details received 6th July 2020. The approved landscape works shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of development. Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or seriously damaged within five years of completion of the approved 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: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping which is essential to the scheme. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Supporting documents: