Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

This item contains the substantive minutes for agenda items 26, 27, and 28. The individual resolutions for each item are contained within their respective minute item.

Bill Soane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and therefore left the room and took no part in either the discussion or vote.

Applicant: Hare Hatch Sheeplands

Proposal: Full Planning application for the proposed change of use from Horticulture use to Exhibition Space (Use Class F1(e)) for the display of Haworthia and associated plants

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 83 to 108.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·           Correction to condition 4 to include reference to other associated plants;

·           Clarification that the information contained within paragraph 6a was incorrect, and that horticultural use was already being lawfully undertaken and that planning permission was never enacted for this purpose.

David Hall, agent, spoke in support of application 211084, 211085, and 211086.  David stated that Hare Hatch Sheeplands (HHS) was a community minded business which had uses comprising of a plant nursery, café, butchers, garden shop, space for community events, and a farm shop. David added that HHS was a valued community asset, and the site had been operating on a fully authorised basis since July 2017. David stated that the horticultural business across the site had continued, however the horticultural industry in general was still under pressure due to Covid-19 and Brexit, amongst other issues. David stated that these issues and delays had interrupted the implementation of the temporary permissions previously granted for the site, the purpose of which was to allow the horticultural business to survive and develop whilst allowing sufficient time to review with the Council the requirements for the business and future plans for the wider area. David added that under these exceptional circumstances, the applications submitted were asking for two additional years to allow the business to develop, whilst providing the applicant with some certainty over the operations uses of the site, in line with the Inspector’s decision. David stated that the enforcement notice and injunction remained in place, however they did not prohibit ancillary activities to the plant nursery such as the holding of events. Examples of the community focussed approach to the site included hosting flower shows, children’s activities, activities relating to community events such as the RG10 front gardens competition (Twyford in Bloom), and food and drink tasting events. David stated that some of these events would take place during the winter when the greenhouses were not in full growing use, supporting the enterprise during the off-season. David stated that the applicant was disappointed that officers had only recommended a one year extension, as opposed to the two year extension requested by the applicant. David was of the opinion that a two year extension was seen to be a realistic approach to the timescale required for the applicant to work on the business during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, whilst simultaneously dealing with the consequences of Brexit. David felt that the suggestion that the pandemic having had a duration, currently, of 16 months equated to a similar timeframe for these operations for the business to restore itself to its pre-Covid trading pattern was unrealistic. David stated that the pandemic had not gone away, and the effects of both Covid-19 and Brexit would have ongoing effects which would make a one year extension an unrealistic period of time to develop the business sufficiently. Relating to application 211085, David was of the opinion that there was no planning justification for inserting condition 3e, since the application did not propose the sale of goods by retail. David added that it was a fact that no food or drink sales had been made from the events area, and any food or drink consumed in the area had been bought from the café or brought in by people visiting the events. Relating to application 211086, David raised concerns relating to proposed condition 3 as this was not required by the inspector at the appeal decision. David added that the Inspector had recognised the garden shop was required to help the horticultural business grow, and to allow a review of future plans for the site, and not to make a horticultural use viable. David was of the opinion that this condition pre-supposed that a viable horticultural use was possible within the next year, which was a complete unknown and it was difficult to see how they would be achieved via an enforceable condition. David stated that it was not possible at the outset to comply with this condition, as the site operated lawful and permanent retail floor space within the farm shop. David asked that Members review the reasonability of the aforementioned conditions. David added that the applicant looked forward to continuing discussions with the Council on a strategy for moving the business forward in a comprehensive way, within the Council’s policy and green belt framework.

Frank Moore, resident, submitted a statement in support of this applicant which was read out by Councillor Angus Ross. Frank stated that he was disappointed to read the proposed limitations being place on applications 211084, 211085, and 211086. Frank was of the opinion that the proposed limitations had no relevance to the plans encompassed within the applications, and in many cases some of the comments were completely incorrect. Frank was of the opinion that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) was trying to ‘get their own back’ on HHS, having lost a significant court case against them in the Court of Appeal in 2019. Frank reminded Members that Her Honour Lady Justice Hallett had stated that prosecution proceedings brought by WBC were unfair and an abuse of process. Frank felt that many of the added comments were in the same vain, and Frank strongly urged Members to ignore the added comments and simply appraise the applications correctly as submitted.

Chris Bowring queried whether condition 3e relating to application 211085 was a duplication of condition 3g. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that 3e was a carryover of the original permission, and referenced the previous permission with regards to restricting retail sale in the events space. 3g strengthened and expanded upon 3e, and was specifically relating to events only.

Chris Bowring queried whether condition 3 relating to application 211086, requirement of a business plan, was not required by the Inspector. Simon Taylor stated that the Inspector had given three primary reasons for permission to be granted; to allow the business to grow, to allow time for review of the future intentions of the site, and to review the impact on the green belt and the countryside. WBC’s view was that the temporary permission would not be continued unless they were satisfied that a viable business was operating without the retail use being there. Simon added that the Council would only be satisfied of this if there was a sound financial basis behind any submitted evidence.

Stephen Conway commented that this site had a long and complex planning history, and the appeal decision had allowed the applicant until 2022 to use the site as permitted. Stephen added that when permission was granted, Brexit and Covid-19 were not issues, and Stephen felt that it was ungenerous to only allow an additional year given these factors. Stephen was of the opinion that permission should be granted for all three applications until 14 March 2024, to balance the local community need and the harm caused. Simon Taylor stated that the exhibition space was considered for a one year permission to tie in with the other applications, the events use recognised that some events had been taking place through the periods of lockdown, whilst the temporary use for the purpose of retail had remained open for most of the lockdown period, demonstrating that the retail use within the nursery had been operating fairly successfully as had the farm shop. Simon added that weighing up all of the factors, a one year extension seemed entirely appropriate to officers.

Andrew Mickleburgh echoed the concerns and suggestions raised by Stephen Conway. Andrew queried why the permission being recommended for application 211084 was for one year when three years were being sought, queried whether there was a quantifiable reason to justify only a one year permission, and queried whether the length of any extension would have any bearing on any future planning application for this site, for example an application for permanent permission. Simon Taylor stated that the exhibition use was proposed for three years, commencing from today, and running through to 2024. This would have resulted in the permission extending for around six months longer than the other two applications. Simon added that it was a material change of use to include class F, which was contrary to green belt policy. A three year extension was seen as excessive as it was a horticultural nursery, and one year seemed reasonable, partly to align this permission to the other permissions. Simon stated that the retail use and the events use had almost seven months left on their permission, and an additional twelve months was proposed to allow a business plan to be developed to demonstrate their future intensions and use. Some discussions had occurred outside of the planning process regarding future intentions for the use, which had not been acceptable to WBC as of yet. Simon commented that the primary use of the site remained horticultural, and felt that these extensions did not set a precedent for a permanent garden centre or other such business.

Chris Bowring was of the opinion that at the time of the application the Inspector would have been aware of Brexit, and therefore felt that the Committee should focus on the effect that the pandemic has had on this site.

Angus Ross was of the opinion that it was best to apply the same end date for all three applications for the sake of consistency, and to avoid confusion. Angus was of the opinion that if these applications were allowed until 2024, it would be harder to refute any potential future application for permanent use if they were deemed to cause harm. Angus stated that he saw no reason to go against any of the officer recommendations.

Pauline Jorgensen queried how long it would take to prove that a successful horticultural business could exist with some other supporting ancillary uses. Simon Taylor stated that it was the Inspector’s intent to grant temporary permission to hopefully allow the horticultural business to stand on its own without a retail element. There had been incremental growth of the use of the site over a long period of time. Simon added that WBC had some hesitancy to maintain the temporary periods, as the intentions of the applicant had not been clear over an extended period of time.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey was of the opinion that the planning history for this site was very complex. Rachelle added that, in her opinion, a one year extension seemed to be reasonable given the unforeseen circumstances faced by the applicant.

Stephen Conway was of the opinion that the Inspector could not have known the full details of Brexit, and the Committee had to consider whether it was reasonable to only grant a one year extension when the applicant had already faced 16 months of disruptions. Stephen was of the opinion that allowing temporary permission until 2024 for all three of the applications provided a balanced decision, and maintained control for WBC.

Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, commented that officers were conscious of the difficulties that the business had faced, whilst also being conscious that part of the business had been open for some of the lockdown period. Justin added that the Inspector had felt that this development was inappropriate development within the green belt. The view of officers was that this additional year was a reasonable compromise as it would end in 2023, given that the Inspectors decision was made in 2019.

Stephen Conway proposed that condition 1 be amended for application number 211084, to amend the terminal date from 14 March 2023 to 14 March 2024. This proposals was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh, and upon being put to the vote the amendment fell.

Stephen Conway stated that in the spirit of keeping the all three applications in line with each other with the same terminal date, he would not propose amendments to either of the further applications.

RESOLVED That application number 211084 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 83 to 85, and correction to condition 4 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.