Agenda item

Recommendation: Refusal

Proposal: Full planning permission for the erection of 2 buildings for Class E use. (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Graham Adams

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 225 to 264.

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

·       Financial information provided by the agent in response to reason for refusal 2;

·       Agricultural consultant comments;

·       Officer analysis of financial report.

Jo Unsworth, agent, spoke in support of the application.  She stated that the application was a retrospective application for two buildings which had been built by the applicant in order to economically support and diversify Lockey Farm.  The Council’s adopted planning policies and the NPPF stated that planning decisions should encourage the sustainable growth and expansion of rural businesses including through the provision of appropriate new buildings, and specifically through the diversification of farming enterprises.  Jo indicated that Lockey Farm had been in the same family since the 1940s.  The owners had 180 sheep and helped to farm neighbouring Newlands Farm.  Until recently they had kept cattle and were planning to do so again.  They had previously kept chickens but had given this up in the last two years due to its financial unviability.  Jo stated that Lockey Farm, like many other farms, was struggling, and was on the brink of ceasing altogether.  This would also result in the closure of the café and the farm shop.  The income streams provided by the office and shop buildings were vital to ensuring the continuation of the building.  Jo commented that officers had recommended refusal due to inadequate justification in the financial information to show that the income from the two buildings supported the farm enterprise.   Officers were of the view that the family did not actually farm, with only a proportion of the income coming from egg production, which was historic.  Jo emphasised that this was a misunderstanding of the information provided and did not take account of the sale of Lockey lamb, eggs and goat meat through the farm shop and elsewhere.  It was only through small scale diversification that the farming business remained viable.  Jo commented that the officers report referred to the excess scale of the buildings and their encroachment into the countryside.  She indicated that the buildings had been positioned so as to represent a modest extension of the courtyard and did not encroach into the countryside.  Jo suggested that should the Committee required further consideration of the financial information provided, the application be deferred so that it could be discussed further with officers.

The Vice Chairman read a statement of support from Gary Cowan, Ward Member.  Gary referred to the small family run farm shop which was supported by the local community, employed local residents, and used local suppliers.  Gary was of the view that the Council should not miss any opportunity to assist local businesses in survival following the pandemic.  He indicated that the Parish Council supported the farm and saw it as an important local business.  The NPPF and other plans allowed for the support of projects in the Borough’s rural communities such as the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based rural businesses.  Gary was of the view that the proposal represented a very small addition to the farm shop, and would not damage the countryside.  In addition the National Planning Policy Framework stated that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural local environment, and supported the retention and development of local services and community facilities such as local shops.  Gary felt that the proposal would not have an impact on the viability or vitality of other retail in the locality.  However, refusal of the application would likely mean the closure of the farm and the loss of employment.  Paragraph 84 of the NPPF recognised that the site met local business and community needs in rural areas adjacent to existing settlements.

It was noted that a number of Members had visited the site either on the site visit or by themselves.

Rachel Lucas, Legal, indicated that there had been some concerns raised regarding the treatment of the allegations of unauthorised development.  A plan indicating areas of authorised and unauthorised development on the site, had been presented at the request of Members.  She advised that with regards to allegations of unauthorised use or development, whilst any planning application had to be considered in the wider context, given the allegations had not yet been determined, very little weight should be placed upon them. 

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that the Committee was considering an application relating to two buildings.  He sought clarification that the farm shop was located in a different building.  Kieran Neumann, case officer indicated that the farm shop had recently been located into a smaller building on site which was not attached or associated to the buildings under consideration.  Andrew Mickleburgh commented that the NPPF referred to support for businesses in the countryside.  He asked for examples of the types of businesses that were considered appropriate and inappropriate, and whether the architects business located in one of the buildings would be included.  Kieran Neumann stated that there were not specific restrictions in the NPPF, but CP11 outlined that the main form of development that was accepted in the countryside, was recreational.  The two buildings under consideration were new buildings in the countryside and were inappropriate by their very nature.  Brian Conlon added that the link to any diversification must be to the primary use of the land, which was agriculture.  Andrew Mickleburgh went on to ask that if it could be demonstrated that the two buildings were vital to the financial viability of the farm business, and also the impact of the poor economic climate, whether these were material planning considerations.  Kieran Neumann indicated that whilst a material consideration, only one of the four reasons for refusal related to the financial information.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey felt that farms that were supporting the local economy, should be supported.

Al Neal commented that the buildings were painted black and clad and could not be clearly viewed from the road.  He sought further clarification regarding sustainable businesses in the countryside as referred to in Paragraph 84 of the NPPF.  Kieran Neumann stated that officers were of the view that the proposals were not sustainable expansions and growth on the site.  The uses of the buildings were inherently urban in character.

Wayne Smith commented that the farm shop was connected to the main use of the site, agriculture.  The buildings that formed the application did not link back to the original use of the site.

It was proposed by Andrew Mickleburgh that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in Appendix 1 of the report.  This was seconded by Chris Bowring.

RESOLVED: That application number 230020 be refused due to the proposals being located outside of Development Limits and being an unacceptable and unsustainable form of development for which inadequate justification exists; the absence of financial information to demonstrate that the proposed buildings and associated uses were economically related to the primary agricultural holding of Lockey Farm and were essential to its continued financial viability; harmful urbanising and industrialising impact on the visual and spatial amenities of the open countryside; and failure to protect and enhance the valued landscape and in particular the condition, character and features that contribute to the Arborfield Cross and Barkham Settled and Farmed Clay Landscape.