Agenda item

Recommendation: Refusal

Proposal: Full application for the proposed redevelopment of existing mixed-use site to a new garden centre with associated play area, allotments, reconfigured parking and servicing, landscaping and other associated infrastructure, replacement cafe, demolition of existing glasshouses, and retention of existing farm shop, site office/toilet block

Applicant: Hare Hatch Sheeplands

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 175 to 240.

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

·         Inclusion of the 2019 appeal decision for information;

·         An additional 33 submissions in support of the proposal, and an additional 6 submissions in support from those who had previously commented on the application, and associated officer responses;

·         Inclusion of a rebuttal to the recommendation from the agent, and associated officer responses.

Alyson Jones, agent, spoke in support of the application. Alyson stated that in addition to being the agent for the application, she was a local resident and had been a customer at Hare Hatch for many years. Alyson stated that the applicant fundamentally disagreed with the approach taken within the report in relation to the green belt, as the site was in a mixed use its redevelopment was appropriate in accordance with the green belt tests. In addition, Alyson felt that the officer assessment of very special circumstances was flawed, as an Inspector had given weight to considerations such as customer expectation, popularity and value to the community, rural job creation and training. Alyson felt that no weight had been given to the huge community benefits which would be delivered as part of the proposals including a new children’s play area, community allotments and recreational facilities, nor significant levels of biodiversity net gain and electric vehicle charging points, or the fifty-eight percent reduction in floor space due to the removal of the existing greenhouse structures. Alyson felt that the previous abuse of process should also be taken into account as very special circumstances. Alyson added that the local community had clearly demonstrated that they wanted these proposals, which would provide a clear basis for the applicant, community and Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) to move forwards in a positive way. Alyson made it clear that should the application not be approved then an appeal would be lodged, and it was likely that further applications would have to be made to the Planning Committee with ad-hoc applications to keep the business operational. Alyson reminded the Committee that should these applications fail, the banks would sell the land to a property developer, and Hare Hatch would lose its community heart.

Mark A’Bear, resident, spoke in support of the application. Mark was representing a large number of residents who were strongly in support of the proposals. Mark added that this application represented opportunities in three respects. Firstly, the application stood on its own merits as a unique proposition that did not exist anywhere else within the Borough, promoting environmental credentials, carbon capture, renewable energy use and sustainability. Secondly, this was an opportunity to extend and retain the benefits of Sheeplands for the local community, including local employment, work experience for young people, community organisations, local suppliers, local charities, education establishments, and over 9000 customers that are in weekly contact with Sheeplands. Finally, Mark felt that this was an opportunity to look forwards and draw a line under the past, and work collaboratively to create something that the community and WBC could be proud of.

Stephen Conway thanked the case officer for his presentation and report. Stephen noted the long and complex planning history relating to the site, and commented that the officer assessment and recommendation was an on-balance conclusion to refuse the application. Stephen stated that his own on-balance view was that the application should be approved for a number of reasons. Stephen stated that there was a dispute as to whether this was previously developed land, however there was recognition that part of the site was previously developed land whilst almost seventy percent of the site under this application would be for horticultural use, which was entirely compatible with its green belt status. Stephen added that the proposed woodland area was also completely compatible with green belt use. Stephen stated that in his view very special circumstances did apply, those being the local community benefit - especially in terms of employment and local community support in excess of 400 submissions, which was considered as a material consideration by a previous appeal Inspector. Stephen stated that the second reason for refusal, harm to the character of the area, was partly offset via the new woodland planting which would partially screen the new build from the A4. In addition, there would be a very clear reduction in the total footprint and volume of the built form on the site. Stephen felt that the lack of employment skills plan could be resolved via legal agreement should the application be approved. Stephen proposed that planning permission be granted.

Angus Ross felt that this was an on-balance decision, and in the view of the very detailed and complex rebuttal of the reasons for refusal as set out by Boyer Planning, Angus proposed that the application be deferred to give adequate consideration to the letter from Boyer Planning and to allow a site visit to be undertaken. Chris Bowring noted that he would be open to seconding this proposal.

Chris Bowring sought clarity as to what would happen to the enforcement notice should planning permission be granted. Simon Taylor, case officer, confirmed that should the application be approved then WBC could withdraw the enforcement notice.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether, if approved, the retail space on site could be converted to another form of retail space via permitted development. Simon Taylor stated that agreement could be reached with the applicant to restrict the ongoing use to that of a garden centre.

Sam Akhtar felt that on balance the application should be approved, as there would be an overall reduction in floor space, the new development would be partially screened by the proposed woodland, and there was huge community support for the proposals.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried which special circumstances did not apply from the officer perspective, queried why the presence of other garden centres on the A4 was not a material planning consideration, and queried which viewpoints were used in the landscape and visual impact assessment when referencing the impact of the built form view at the site. Simon Taylor stated that paragraphs 48 to 50 outlined the very special circumstances that were felt not to apply, such as biodiversity net gain which was an expected outcome of any development, whilst the abuse of process was not felt to be a material planning consideration as it went back several years. Simon added that other less desirable uses would still be required to be assessed under the green belt policy and the NPPF. In relation to the neighbouring garden centres, Simon stated that these garden centres were lawful developments whereas this application sought change of use from a nursery to a garden centre. Simon noted that a range of viewpoints were used when assessing the view of the site.

Pauline Jorgensen queried whether the retail use would be subsidiary of the nursery, and queried whether the agreement of planning permission would designate the rest of the site as previously developed land which could lend to future applications. Simon Taylor stated that this application was effectively removing the existing development on site and starting again, which was a provision within the NPPF. Simon stated that there would not be an automatic entitlement to develop across the whole site should planning permission be granted, and the openness of the green belt would be protected via the proposal not having a greater impact than that of the existing development.

Gary Cowan noted that there was an enormous amount of support for this application, and added that the site had been developed and must be looked at within this context. Gary stated that the garden centre across the road had also started as a smaller nursery and had been expanded, and commented that there were no statutory objections to the application.

Bill Soane noted the overwhelming community support for this application, and commented that the tractor dealership across the road had once been a nursery. Bill added that the application site was a community asset that residents had long asked for, and noted the various charity and community work carried out at the site.

At this stage of the meeting, Simon Taylor shared a document of suggested draft conditions should the Committee approve the application. Angus Ross suggested that the final conditions be agreed in consultation with the Chairman and neighbouring Ward member Stephen Conway. This suggestion was agreed by the Committee.

Mary Severin, Borough Solicitor, sought that Angus Ross’ proposal to defer be withdrawn prior to Members voting to go against the officer recommendation of refusal. Angus Ross confirmed that he was happy to withdraw his proposal.

Mary Severin sought clarity for the reasons why Members were proposing to go against the officer recommendation, for example that there were very special circumstances to approve, that subject to conditions there would be very little harm to the character of the area, and that an employment skills plan could be achieved via legal agreement. Stephen Conway confirmed that he was happy with the wording suggested by Mary Severin.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved, subject to conditions and informatives being agreed in consultation with the Chairman and himself as the neighbouring Ward Member, and subject to legal agreement to secure an Employment Skills Plan. This proposal was seconded by Gary Cowan, and upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED: That application number 214108 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman and neighbouring Ward Member Stephen Conway, and subject to legal agreement to secure an Employment Skills Plan.