Agenda item

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/00533/FULMAJ in respect of Section 73a: Variation of conditions 16 (Private Equestrian Use), 4 (CEMP), 6 (Landscaping), 7 (Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan) and 15 (Manure Storage and Disposal) and remove condition 5 (Tree Protection) of previously approved application 21/03260/COMIND: Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian and erection of stable block/yard, menage and creation of associated access. Retention of 4 No. temporary field shelters and mobile stable unit on skids.

2.       Ms Gemma Kirk 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 Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application and his full representation can be viewed here: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024. In summary it was confirmed that Highways’ Officers raised no objection to the proposal.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter James and Mr John Braithwaite, objectors and Ms Amanda Cottingham, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

5.       Mr Peter James and Mr John Braithwaite addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

6.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       It was since the Oakdown Fields facility had started operating that a degradation of the surrounding trails had been noticed, and horses and riders from Oakdown Fields had been noticed using these paths. If riders kept to the bridle paths there would not be an issue. Horses and riders from the facility had been noticed travelling along Short Heath Lane and using the woods.

·       A complaint had been submitted to West Berkshire Council regarding the use of certain paths by horse riders from the site. It had taken a long time to receive a response from officers and the only response received had been in relation to the campervan. The matter of the paths in question being used by horse riders had been raised on local Facebook groups. It was believed that the local Ward Member, Councillor Ross Mackinnon, was aware of the issue.

·       The rate of growth of the occupancy of the premises had only accelerated since spring 2024. In 2023, the property had been mainly vacant. There had only been one spring/summer where 16 horses had been accommodated at the facility, which was why the quality of paths was getting worse. This was not believed to be anecdotal evidence as it had been witnessed and raised by several members of the public. It was not felt that the owners engaged with the community.

Applicant Representation

7.       Ms Amanda Cottingham addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

8.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       There were not currently 16 horses on site and there were eight empty stables.

·       The site did not have the facilities to cater for foaling. The facility was for private people who had a horse as a hobby. Many worked full time and therefore wanted somewhere to keep their horse where someone else looked after them and they then ride when they could.

·       Ms Cottingham lived within the village in Burghfield Common.

·       Regarding the visitor hours imposed by condition 17, Ms Cottingham confirmed that they were not envisaging having visitors after eight o’clock in the evening however, she questioned if by ‘visitors’ this also included people who owned one of the horses kept at the yard. In the summer it was often light after nine o’clock and therefore it was possible for owners to ride after work. The condition in question would cause stress due to the need to rush off-site by eight o’clock due to the risk of breaking a planning condition.

Member Questions to Officers

9.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Regarding condition 16 on the restriction on externally stored equestrian paraphernalia,Mr Till confirmed that in his view the reason why the condition contained a number of elements was to ensure it was precise and specific. He felt that the requirements of the condition and what was meant by equestrian paraphernalia was clear and in Officers’ view the condition was enforceable however, if Members wished for there to be a bullet pointed list then this was possible however, the advice was that this was unnecessary.

·       Regarding essential items such as hayracks and water troughs, Mr Till was of the view that these were included in condition 16 and therefore prohibited as it caused clutter across the site. If Members disagreed with the intent of the condition to prevent cluttering of the site with various equestrian paraphernalia, then the alternative was to remove the condition as it did not meet with what was reasonable in terms of the planning permission granted.

·       Regarding the condition being overly restrictive, Mr Till clarified that the condition did not set out to prevent activity that was incidental to what was being carried out on site. There had to be a test of expediency with a planning condition and its enforcement. The aim of the condition was to prevent the permanent storage of items on the land rather than that of a temporary nature. It was not felt that the condition implied the temporary nature of storage and was in the event that the land became cluttered with paraphernalia that should be stored the apron curtilage of the buildings.

·       Mr Till clarified that the word ‘visitors’ related to any person who was not the owner/occupant of the site.  A person paying for the services of the business would be deemed a visitor.

·       In relation to visitors to the site, Ms Kirk clarified that there was not a dwelling on the land. The site only consisted of land for equestrian use.

·       Regarding water troughs in the land, Mr Till confirmed that if Members felt it reasonable, a clause could be included to exclude water troughs from condition 16 and Officers would support this change.

·       In terms of being clear regarding what was included in condition 16 and in order to avoid unnecessary work and complaints, Mr Till reiterated his point about expediency. If an Enforcement Officer was asked to visit the site with a view to taking action against a piece of paraphernalia that had been extensively stored on the land, then it would need to be examined that it had been stored for the long-term following discussion with the applicant. 

·       Councillor Taylor suggested that the wording ‘equestrian paraphernalia’ could be removed from condition 16.

Debate

10.   Councillor Christopher Read noted that it had been heard from objectors regarding the poor conditions of footpaths. He queried if this was about specific controls needing to be placed on footpaths such as kissing gates to dissuade horse riders from using them. Councillor Read commented that if the application was within his own Ward of Bucklebury it would likely be welcomed by residents as there was a shortage of equestrian sites.

11.   Councillor Vicky Poole commented that as an avid walker, the paths across Burghfield, Mortimer and Bradfield were used by more than just walkers including bikers. Councillor Poole had only once noticed a horse. Much of the land was privately owned and it was therefore very difficult to enforce kissing gates as access was required by landowners for clearance activities, litter picking etc. Councillor Poole did not believe that horses and riders were solely responsible for the path degradation.

12.   Councillor Read queried if there could be a condition stating that there should be strong guidance for the owner of the equestrian site not to use the footpaths. Mr Till confirmed that footpaths fell under different legislation to planning and he believed a person would be committing an offence if a non-bridleway was used for horse riding.

13.   Councillor Poole referred to condition 17 and stated that she would like to see a definition included to clarify what a visitor was. Regarding condition 16, Councillor Poole supported Councillor Taylor’s suggestion to make it very evident what could and could not be stored on the site in order to keep the animals in good condition, such as the availability of water troughs and anything else required for daytime feeding.

14.   Councillor Read felt that there was little else in terms of long-term equestrian paraphernalia, apart from water troughs, that should not be tidied away by an evening. Councillor Read proposed that condition 16 be amended to enable water troughs to be left out on site.

15.   Mr Till suggested that, based on comments by Councillor Read and Councillor Poole, there be an exemption within condition 16, enabling water troughs to be kept on the land.

16.   Regarding condition 17 on visitors and visitor hours, Mr Till commented that there was already a definition included, which was ‘except for employees and in emergencies’. This could be tightened up to a visitor is a person who is not an owner or an employee of the business on the site. Councillor Poole was satisfied with this suggestion.

17.   Councillor Justin Pemberton referred to Councillor Taylor’s point and queried if the wording ‘equestrian paraphernalia’ was going to be retained within condition 16. The Chaiman felt that a proposal was required, and an amendment could be proposed as part of this if desired.

18.   Councillor Read proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report, update report, and amendments to condition 16 regarding water troughs being permitted and a change to condition 17 regarding the definition of visitors. This was seconded by Councillor Poole.

19.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Read, seconded by Councillor Poole, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report, subject to the following amendments:

• Condition 16:

No materials, goods, plant, machinery, equipment, storage container, waste containers or other items of equestrian paraphernalia, but excluding water troughs, shall be stored, processed, repaired or displayed in the open land on the site other than that approved or such tools and equipment as required to carry out upkeep and maintenance of the land.

Reason: In the interest of the rural character of the site. This condition is applied in the accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS12, 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).

• Condition 17:

The stable yard shall not be open to visitors outside of the following: 07:00 - 20:00 on every day of the week. For the purposes of this condition a visitor is a person who is not the owner or an employee of the business on the site.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of surrounding occupiers and to protect the rural character of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Polices ENV.29 and OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).