Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of use of land to dog walking facility with associated access and parking.
Location:	Land south of School Hill, Midgham.
Applicant:	Mr and Mrs White.
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reasons listed in the report.

 

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/01998/FULMAJ in respect of land south of School Hill, Midgham in regard to a change of use of land to a dog walking facility with associated access and parking.

2.    Mr Michael 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Control Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.    The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard explained that there were concerns over the sightlines with the access to the site. Secondly, Mr Goddard noted that the traffic numbers generated by the site were not significant enough for refusal, and finally the application was not sustainable because it would encourage people to make longer journeys to get to the site then they otherwise would have.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Damien Mckinney, objector, Debra White and Francis Long, applicant/agent and Councillor Chris Read, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

5.    Mr Mckinney addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=1401

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       There were plenty of bridleways and public rights of way that could be utilised by dog walkers.

·       There were a lot of wild animals in the area which meant that it was not wise for dogs to be off their leads.

Applicant/Agent Representation

7.    Ms White and Mr Long addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=1753

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       There would be a high wired fence around the site.

·       One person could bring up to six dogs.

·       There were around 500 registered users.

·       The nearest site to the area was eight miles away.

·       There were three car parking spaces and three spaces within a waiting area.

Ward Member Representation

9.    Councillor Chris Read addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: https://youtu.be/qBQOCIkc7Lc?t=2294

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10. Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

• Horse racing facilities were considered rural in nature and could not be placed in urban centres, whereas a dog walking site could be placed in urban centres and so discourage unnecessary travel.
• The surrounding area had a low population with many public rights of way that could be used.
• Electric Vehicles (EVs) had not come with guidance on sustainable travel, however it could be viewed that they still needed to be charged, therefore they were not perfectly sustainable.
• The access road was set at the national speed limit.
• Officers could not assume that members of the public would use the site at Pincents Hill. 
• There were plenty of dog walking sites near Thatcham.
• The report conceded that the site would aid rural diversification, however this had to be balanced with sustainability.

Debate

12. Councillor Richard Somner opened the debate by asserting the application was not straightforward and added that it would have been beneficial to see financial data. The Councillor raised concerns over the traffic and highlighted the importance of balancing the needs of the area, versus the sustainability.

13. Councillor Justin Pemberton explained that the categorisation of urban/rural business was subjective and noted the need to help develop businesses in the rural countryside. The Councillor also explained that the appeal decision was dependant on missing information.

14. Councillor Vicky Poole explained that there were not many public rights of way available to dog walkers in the area and queried whether there would be noise concerns from dogs walking in the park. The Councillor highlighted the benefit such a facility had for anxious dogs.

15. Councillor Stewart explained that it would be nice to have a safe space for dogs and questioned whether there would be a noise issue as Environmental Health had raised no objection. The Councillor added that the financial information would not be necessary for her decision making.

16. Councillor Taylor believed the site would be good for dog walkers and recollected that similar sites did not produce much noise.

17. Councillor Pemberton proposed to reject the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Kander.

18. Mr Simon Till suggested a range of conditions that could be added to the planning application, and this was accepted by the proposer and seconder.

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

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

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

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. The development shall be carried out in strict accord with the following plans .

Location plan-dated 3/09/24.

Block plan-2333-01-p-005-Rev A

Layout plan-2323-01-p-Rev A.

Reason: To ensure the scheme is built out correctly in accord with the advice in the DMPO of 2015.

 

3. The development shall not be occupied until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:

• schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities

• an implementation programme providing sufficient specifications to ensure successful cultivation of trees, shrub and grass establishment.

The scheme shall ensure;

a) Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.

b) Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

Reason: Required to safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the area, to provide ecological, environmental and biodiversity 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, and CS19 of the WBCS.

 

4. The use of the site shall not commence until the submitted sight lines from the proposed access point in both directions are provided at the site. Ie 57m minimum, as shown on plan number 2024/7742/001. These shall be maintained thereafter at a minimum height of 0.6m above carriageway level.

Reason. To ensure highways safety is protected in accord with policy CS13 in the WBCS of 2006 to 2026.

 

5. The time limits to be applied to the use of the site will be as follows; October to March inclusive 8am to 5pm and April to September inclusive 7am to 9pm.

Reason: To ensure no impact on amenity by reason of noise in accord with policy OVS6 in the WBDLP of 1991 to 2006 as saved. 

 

6. At no time shall any external lighting be erected on the application site without the express consent of the LPA, via an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure no light pollution of the rural area in accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2024.

 

7. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the on-site parking and access improvements as on the submitted plans have been implemented on site to the satisfaction of the LHA. The parking and access shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity so long as the permitted use persists on the application site.

Reason: In the interest of highways safety in accord with policy CS13 in the WBCS.

 

8. The use of the application site shall be for a dog walking site only and for no other use.

Reason: To clarify the permission as other uses on the site may not be appropriate in accord with the advice in the DMPO of 2015.   

 

9. All ecological measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in ‘Location plan’ Drawing no. 2333_01_P005 as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the Local Planning Authority prior to determination.

Reason: To ensure the adequate safeguarding of protected species in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

 

10. The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The HMMP shall be prepared to accompany the Biodiversity Gain Plan, and shall be submitted for approval alongside or after the submission the BGP.

(NOTE: In accordance with Paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, this planning permission is subject to the condition (“the biodiversity gain condition”) that the development may not be begun unless (a) a biodiversity gain plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and (b) the planning authority has approved the plan.  This is deemed to be applied by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and is not replicated on this decision notice. Full details are set out in the informative below.) 

The HMMP shall include:

(1)      a non-technical summary;

(2)      the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP;

(3)      the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan;

(4)      the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and

(5)      the monitoring methodology and frequency in respect of the created or enhanced habitat to be submitted to the local planning authority,

 

The details provided in relation to point (5) shall ensure that, as a minimum, monitoring takes place in 2 years, 5 years,10 years,15 years, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years following completion of the development.  For the purposes of this condition, completion of development shall be taken as the ‘completion of the dog walking facility.

No operation shall take place until:

(6)      the habitat creation and enhancement works set out in the approved HMMP have been completed; and

(7)      a completion report, evidencing the completed habitat enhancements, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Notice in writing shall be given to the Council when the:

(8)      HMMP has been implemented; and

(9)      habitat creation and enhancement works as set out in the HMMP have been completed. 

The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP.

Monitoring reports shall be submitted to local planning authority in writing in accordance with the methodology and frequency specified in the approved HMMP.

Where monitoring identifies the required habitat condition is not being maintained in accordance with the Biodiversity Gain Plan, the submission to the Local Planning Authority shall include any necessary remedial measures, and thereafter any such measures shall be caried out within a timescale agreed with the Local Planning Authority.   Supplemental reports may be required pursuant to this condition where necessary.

Where monitoring identifies the required habitat condition is not being maintained in accordance with the Biodiversity Gain Plan, the submission to the Local Planning Authority shall include any necessary remedial measures, and thereafter any such measures shall be caried out within a timescale agreed with the Local Planning Authority.   Supplemental reports may be required pursuant to this condition where necessary.

Reason:   To ensure the development delivers a biodiversity net gain on site in accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  A pre-commencement condition is required because the habitat and management arrangements need to be determined before existing habitats are affected.