Agenda item

Proposal:	1. Construction of stabling and hard standing; 2. Change of use from agricultural to a mixed agricultural/equestrian use; 3. Soft landscaping scheme.
Location:	Land West Of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water.
Applicant:	Charles Doherty.
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Service Director, Development and Regulation to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions.

 

(The Chairman declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1))

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/01519/FUL in respect of Land West of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water, Enborne. Approval was sought for: 1. Construction of stabling and hard standing; 2. Change of use from agricultural to a mixed agricultural/equestrian use; 3. Soft landscaping scheme.

2.     Miss 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 Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended drainage information to delegate to the Service Director, Development and Regulation to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed below OR, in the event that satisfactory additional information on drainage is not provided within 3 months of the date of this meeting (or such longer period as to be agreed in writing by the Development control Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee) to refuse the application for the following reason:

“The application is not accompanied by sufficient information to determine that drainage and flood risk on the site can be addressed through implementation of an adequate strategy of onsite drainage measures. Therefore the application fails to meet with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2026, which requires development to be safe and not increase flood risk elsewhere and to manage surface water in a sustainable manner through the implementation of SuDS, and the recommendations of the West Berkshire Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Supplementary Planning Document (2018).”

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the application had been refused previously on Highways grounds, and that there was concern over vehicle speeds on the road. However, as the sight lines on the road were very good, there were no Highways concerns on this occasion.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Sam Eachus, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. The Chairman noted that a representative of the Parish Council had wanted to address the committee on this application, but had missed the notification deadline. Also, he also noted that Ward Member, Councillor James Cole, was unable to attend the meeting.

Agent Representation

5.     Mr Sam Eachus in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Eachus was present on behalf of the applicant, Mr David Wood.

·         In regards to grazing needs, the guidelines were for horses, not for ponies, and were only guidelines. The size and health of the horse were factors, and the two ponies could get their nutritional needs on the land. Mr Eachus believed

·         In regards to highways, Mr Eachus noted the lack of objections, and that sightlines were very good. The Highway Code does not prohibit children from riding animals on B-roads, and drivers could safely navigate around them. Children would be wearing helmets, in high-visibility clothing, and in the presence of an adult.

·         The road in question was regularly used by equestrians, and it was not uncommon in rural areas.

·         Mr Eachus noted the visual quality of the land after it had been purchased by the applicant, and that the applicant was interested in keeping it visually attractive.

Member Questions to the Agent

6.     Councillor Andy Moore asked whether the applicant would be willing to accept a condition that limited them to solely keeping ponies on the land. Mr Eachus responded that he believed the land was large enough to manage grazing needs for horses as well as ponies, and so such a condition was unnecessary.

Ward Member Representation

7.     The Chairman in addressing the Committee as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         The previous application was refused for reasons of overdevelopment of the site, but this had been adequately addressed by virtue of the application being for a larger area of land, and for grazing that was not year-round.

·         Highway safety remained an issue, with vehicles passing the site at speeds of up to the national speed limit, and as the ponies kept would be for children. It remained a primary concern.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

8.     Councillor Phil Barnett recalled occasions where the River Enborne had risen to the highest point of the bank, and asked whether it had gone any higher in the vicinity of this site. The Chairman responded that he did not know. He noted that the Highways Drainage Officer had commented and the matter was mentioned in the update sheet.

Member Questions to Officers

9.     Councillor Adrian Abbs noted mention of Policy CS15, but he did not know if there was any lighting on the development that would have carbon implications, and that he had not heard anything about biodiversity on the site. Mr Simon Till responded that the proposed development was not liable for BREEAM nor Zero Carbon under the policy. If the applicant was to propose sustainable energy generation then they would be accepted, but they could not be compelled to provide them. Councillor Abbs asked whether the application presented a shortcoming in Policy CS15, to which Mr Till agreed, noting that the policy was written in 2012, and there had been changes in national policy in the period since its adoption. He suggested that this could be addressed within the new Local Plan. Ms Cheyanne Kirby confirmed that Ecology had been consulted, but did not reply on this application. She did not feel that there was not enough in the application to warrant seeking significant biodiversity net gain, and clearing the site of rubbish was considered a benefit. She noted that there was a condition regarding external lighting due to its position on the edge of the AONB and its potential effect on bats.

10.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted that the speed limit near to the development was 60 mph, and asked whether there were plans to change it. Mr Goddard confirmed that the national speed limit was in place past the site and had sight lines of 215 metres. He noted that a short distance to the east, the speed limit reduced to 30 mph. He was not aware of any planned changes.

11.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked if there were any concerns related to horse waste, and any arrangement or condition relating to dealing with it, citing concerns about nitrates in watercourses. Mr Till responded that there was a recommended condition in the update sheet relating to storage and disposal of horse waste.

12.  Councillor Jeff Cant asked whether the Highways concern related to the safety of the site access rather than safety of riding on the road. Mr Goddard responded that Highways looked at both aspects and considered safety requirements to be met due to the good sight lines.

13.  Councillor Moore asked whether a condition limiting the site to ponies would be feasible. Mr Simon Till responded that he did not believe it was in the remit of Planning to limit which type of animal was kept, and would not be judged reasonable.

Debate

14.  Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate by noting that Policy CS15 must be taken to account, and that all non-residential developments were required to achieve BREEAM ‘Excellent’ and be Zero Carbon. Councillor Abbs also questioned whether tidying up the land was beneficial for biodiversity, since undisturbed land brought benefits for wildlife. Mr Till stated that BREEAM did not apply to this building, since it was not designed to accommodate people.

15.  Councillor Jeff Cant noted that this was a small rural business wishing to introduce a small change to its business model. He did not believe there was any reason to refuse the application.

16.  Councillor Hilary Cole noted that her animal welfare concerns from the previous applications had been addressed by a doubling of the size of the site. She was satisfied with the explanations in relation to BREEAM. She felt that it would be an unreasonable condition to say that only ponies could be kept on the site. She was also content with the explanation from Highways on sight lines and felt that motorists needed to be cognisant of horses.

17.  Councillor Phil Barnett agreed that previous concerns relating to animal welfare and the site access had been addressed.

18.  Councillor Clive Hooker noted from the site visit that there had been a considerable improvement in the quality of the grass in the original paddock, and he felt that the larger site would be capable of taking two ponies, so his concerns had been addressed. Councillor Hooker noted that there had been a gate at the bottom of the field, which was closer to the bridleway to the west of the site, but Highways had asked for this to be closed off.

19.  Councillor Jeff Cant 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 Hilary Cole.

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

RESOLVED that the Service Director - Development and Regulation 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 (updated)

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:

Design and Access Statement dated May 2021 received 1st June 2021;

Block Plan 2515/18 received on 12^th July 2021;

Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan 2515/2 received 1^st June 2021;

Fencing Details 2515/4 received 28^th June 2021;

Location Plan 2515/6 received 228^th June 2021;

Section/Level 2515/5 received 1^st June 2021;

Soft Landscaping 2515/38 received 12^th July 2021;

Proposed Access Details 2515/7 received 5^th August 2021;

Justification Statement KCC3134/pg received 30^th September 2021;

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Issue 3 7751 Dated April 2021 received 1^st June 2021 [to be updated to reflect additional drainage information once approved by drainage engineer].

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.      Parking/turning in accord with plans

The use shall not commence until the vehicle parking have been surfaced, and provided in accordance with the approved plan(s). The parking 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, 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).

5.      Access Closure with reinstatement

The existing western vehicular access at the site shall be stopped up and abandoned immediately after the eastern access hereby approved has been brought into use.

The verge shall, at the same time as the stopping-up and abandonment, be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

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

6       Environment Agency

No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water to the ground are permitted other than with the written consent of the local planning authority. Any proposals for such systems must be supported by an assessment of the risks to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution caused by mobilised contaminants. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.      SUDS (Updated)

The development shall not be brought into use until drainage measures have been implemented in accordance with the details shown on drawing numbers [to be agreed by the drainage engineer prior to approval being granted]. The drainage measures shall be maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CC1, CC2 and NRM4 of the South East Plan (May 2009), Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

8.      Landscaping

All landscape works shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans, ref: Soft landscaping –planting schedule ref: 2515/38 received on 12^th July 2021. The approved landscaping plan shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of development.

Any trees, shrubs or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased within five years from completion of this development shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: Required to safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the area, to provide ecological, environmental and bio-diversity benefits and to maximise the quality and usability of open spaces within the development, and to enhance its setting within the immediate locality. This is to ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the NPPF and Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

9.      Private equestrian use only

Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2015 (as amended) (or an order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), the application site area permitted shall only be used for private recreational equestrian purposes and shall not be used for any other purpose including commercial riding, breeding, training or liveries.

Reason: In the interests of amenity. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy ENV.29 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and the Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

10.    Number of horses

No more than 2 horses shall be stabled on the site at any one time and additional horses shall not be bought onto the site at any one time.

Reason: To limit the level of activity on the site as a means to protect the rural character of the area due to the limit amount of land available. 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 Policy ENV.29 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

11.    Use of stables

No trade, business or commercial use of any kind shall be carried out from the stables and parking area permitted in this scheme.

Reason: In the interests of amenity. 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 Policy ENV.29 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

12.    Manure/waste skip (Additional)

The waste skip shall be kept covered at all times except to allow loading in order to prevent rainwater ingress so as to reduce risk of contaminated liquid leaking out.

Reason: To ensure that no contaminated liquid escapes in order to prevent pollution into the ground and nearby river. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1 and CS16 and CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Sustainable Drainage Systems SPD (2018).

Informatives

1.      DEC3 - This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2.      HI 3 - The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

3.      HI 4 - The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.