Agenda item

Proposal: Retention of unauthorised works, retrospective application for full restoration and conversion of the barn.  Add internal insulation and air cooling with the addition of a new porch to West elevation to provide the key reception area for a flexible events venue.
Location: Awberry Farm, Beenham
Applicant: Nigel Hopes
Recommendation: The Service Director of Planning and Regulation be authorised to GRANT listed building consent.

 

Item starts at 2 hours and 8 seconds into the recording.

44. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/01014/LBC in respect of retention of unauthorised works, retrospective application for full restoration and conversion of the barn.  Addition of internal insulation and air cooling, and a new porch to the west elevation to provide the key reception area for a flexible events venue at Awberry Farm, Beenham.

45.Mr Butler introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant listed building consent, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

46.Anything from Paul Goddard?

47.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter McEwan, Beenham Parish Council representative, Mr David Hancock, objector, Mr Nigel Toon, supporter, and Mr Nigel Hopes, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

48.  Mr McEwan in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The site had three separate renovations over the years where plans were not detailed properly.

·         That a condition should be put into place to ask for the previous plans to be handed over to West Berkshire Council.

·         That there would be one small door for the site users to enter through that required going up and down steps, meaning that there was no provision for disabled access to the site.

·         That the application should be conditioned for a revaluation for the entrance porch. 

Member Questions to the Parish Council

49.  Mr McEwan stated that the double door system was set up as mitigation for the noise and argued that there were no details in the report about access and that it would not work effectively.

50.  Mr McEwan expressed that someone should have the plans for the previous developments and could provide the drawings.

Objector Representation

51.  Mr Hancock in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That the Committee could not tell what the future intentions of the site might be and that this could be used for further development down the line.

·         Although there had been changes to the original application these changes were not enough.

·         The site was at 35 decibels during testing, so with the addition of music it would surely bring the noise over the sound limit, therefore the sound target would be impossible to achieve.

·         There were 60 residential properties nearby and all of these would be affected.

·         It would be a risk to approve the retrospective planning application.

Member Questions to the Objector

52.  Mr Hancock expressed that he was unsure what impact the noise suppression would have at the site.

Supporter Representation

53.  Mr Toon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The renovations would not compromise the historic structure of the barn.

·         There would be no material difference compared to the existing structure.

·         The barn would be supplemental to what was already in the village, in terms of the venues available.

Member Questions to the Supporter

54.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant Representation

55.  Mr Hopes in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The applicant worked with the wider community to discuss the changes; they had also reached out to multiple objectors.

·         The barn had been used for weddings before.

·         The Conservation Officer had no objections.

·         They worked with a heritage building consultant to preserve the integrity of the heritage asset.

·         There would be screening to prevent the visibility of the car park.

·         There were no sightlines where the light from Awberry Farm could be seen by residents.

Member Questions to the Applicant

56.Mr Hopes explained that catering would come through the north set of double doors and the single door was for access to the toilet facilities. The double doors to the south would be shut at 22:00.

57.The Committee heard that the current disabled access to the toilet would be through the double doors.

58.Mr Hopes expressed that a fire assessment had taken place and was approved.

59.The Committee heard that this was the final application that Mr Hopes planned to put forward.

Member Questions to Officers

60.Mr Butler expressed that even though the doors would have to be opened for disabled access, officers concluded that the noise impact would be acceptable.

61.Mr Butler argued that it would not be appropriate or consistent to refuse the application, due to the potential noise implications, as the previous application was considered acceptable.

62.The Committee heard that to condition the need to find the old plans would be unreasonable.

63.The Committee was informed that Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance did not extend to listed buildings.

64.Ms Lydia Mather explained that the Committee could consider whether an amended plan could be delegated to officers for approval, which would consider disabled access.

65.The Committee heard that the delegated decision would be reviewed by the Chairman of the Committee and the Ward Member to provide oversight. If neither the Ward Member nor the Chairman were satisfied, the application could go back to the Committee. However, the application had already been in front of the Committee.

66.Mr Butler explained that the existing roof would be maintained, and it was only being raised. Ms Mather explained that a condition could be added over the use of roof tiles. This was to insert the additional acoustic insulation material. 

Debate

67.  Councillor Langford opened the debate by stating that the amended plans should not be agreed upon by delegated powers due to the strong feeling in the village, therefore it should be brought back to Committee.

68.  Councillor Cottam proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant listed building consent subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. There would also be the addition of a condition around the re-submission of plans, which were to be considered by the Chairman and Ward Member, to accommodate the disabled access and a condition on the tiling of the roof. This was seconded by Councillor Poole.

69.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cottam, seconded by Councillor Poole, to grant listed building consent. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant listed building consent subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.    Air ventilation/cooling.

No development shall take place until full details/cross sections showing how all ducting (from the ventilation units and air conditioning units) will feed into the building, have 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 details.

Reason: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

3.    The development must be carried out in strict accord with the following as approved plans.

Existing site plan-21/08/04 A

Location plan -blue jet mapping.

Floor plan—22/010/14C

Site plan-21/08/04

Section-22/10/sct

Elevations -22/10/16D

Reason: To clarify what has been approved under this consent in order to protect the special architectural or historic interest of the building.

4.    The change of use permitted under 23/00376/FULMAJ shall not commence until all the works to be carried out as approved by this listed building consent have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the noise impact is mitigated to a satisfactory level in accordance with policy OVS6 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan of 1991 to 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework

5.    The works to the listed building hereby granted shall be undertaken in accordance with the bat mitigation measures identified in the John Wenman Ecological Consultancy Bat Emergency & Re-entry Survey Ref R3003/a. Prior to commencement of the relevant works to the listed building: a copy of the European Protected Species Mitigation Licence shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior; bat boxes shall be installed, and the licensed ecologist shall give a toolbox talk to contractors.

Reason: To ensure protected species on site are protected as part of the works in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

6.    If the conversion works hereby approved does not commence (or, having commenced, is suspended for more than 12 months) within a year from the date of the planning permission, the approved ecological measures secured through Condition 5 shall be reviewed and, where necessary, amended and updated. The review shall be informed by further ecological surveys commissioned to (i) establish if there have been any changes in the presence and/or abundance of bats and (ii) identify any likely new ecological impacts that might arise from any changes.

Where the survey results indicate that changes have occurred that will result in ecological impacts not previously addressed in the approved scheme, the original approved ecological measures will be revised and new or amended measures, and a timetable for their implementation, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development continuation of the works. Works will then be carried out in accordance with the proposed new approved ecological measures an timetable.

IMPORTANT: If any protected species are identified in the new surveys that were not previously known to be on site, and are likely to be harmed by the development, then a protected species licence might be required before works can commence. Advice should be sought from Natural England and/or a suitably qualified ecologist.

Reason: To ensure that any working practices or other mitigation measures are informed by up-todate survey information in the interests of protecting bat populations. A pre-commencement condition is required for updated surveys given the mobile nature of bats. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

7.    Existing roof tiles from the main roof, which need to be removed as part of the proposal, shall be reused in the proposed works. Where the use of reclaimed roof tiles are required to be used where insufficient numbers of salvageable roof tiles are available, no re-roofing shall take place until a sample of reclaimed roof tiles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All materials incorporated in the work shall match the approved samples.

Reason: To ensure that the materials are appropriate to the special architectural or historic interest of the building. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

This decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the West Berkshire

District Local Plan 1991-2006 (WBDLP) Saved Policies 2007, and to all other relevant material considerations, including Government guidance, supplementary planning guidance notes; and in particular guidance notes and policies:

The reasoning above is only intended as a summary. If you require further information on the decision please contact the Council via the Customer Call Centre on 01635 519111.

Informatives:

1.    The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that above conditions must be complied with in full before any work commences on site, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being investigated.

2.    The above Permission may contain pre-conditions, which require specific matters to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. For example, “Prior to commencement of development written details of the means of enclosure will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development cannot be made until the particular requirements of the pre-condition(s) have been met.

3.    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.