Agenda item

Recommendation: Refusal

Proposal: Full application for the proposed ground floor and first extensions to the existing buildings to provide additional workshop, gallery, and mezzanine level for dry storage along with recreational floorspace. Re-cladding of external walls with vertical timber boards. Creation of a river cutting to provide additional /replacement moorings.

Applicant: Mr Adam Toop

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 187 to 224.

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

·       Details of 21 additional representations, 3 of which supplement an existing representation, and 18 which were new;

·       Details of volume calculations;

·       National Planning Policy Framework clarification;

·       Clarification around local employment

John Merkel, Remenham Parish Councillor, spoke in support of the application.  John was of the view that the proposal was uniquely suited to the activities that took place in Remenham.  The development of the museum aspect was a long-term project and would have a positive impact on the local area.  He stated that it was a small community and that the activities would develop and grow.  John felt that the proposal for refusal related to the question of scale, but he believed that changes would be incremental.

Adrian Gould, agent, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the proposal was not a redevelopment, but an extension.  It would not be harmful to the Green Belt as it complied with NPPF Guidance that allowed for proportionate extensions to existing buildings.  The extension would amount to a volume metric increase of 12%.  Adrian commented that the proposal did not involve a change of use, and that the principal use would remain the storage, maintenance and repair of boats.  The mezzanine would be used for complementary purposes which were ancillary and would not exist in isolation.  Adrian emphasised that the proposed extension would enhance the design quality of the building, in a developed part of the river frontage.  Whilst part of the central section would increase in height, it would remain in keeping with the height of neighbouring buildings.  The proposed planting would provide landscape enhancement and significant biodiversity net gains.  Adrian commented that the proposed moorings would not impact adversely on Green Belt openness and were different to a previous proposal.

Adam Toop, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He emphasised that the collection was of national significance and urgently required a suitable home and to stay together.  Adam commented that the artefacts needed to be stored in a safe, controlled environment of modest scale.  The proposed mezzanine would protect the items from annual flooding.  Adam stated that the boatyard had been used to store, maintain, and moor boats for over a century, and the proposal proposed a continuation of this.  Adam referred to local support for the application.  He stated that the proposal represented sensitive, community focused improvements that valued and safeguarded the importance of the site.

Graham Howe, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.  He was also speaking on behalf of John Halsall, his fellow Ward Member.  Graham stated that the proposal did not represent a change of use and that he believed that the proposals would improve the building materially.  The exterior cladding would improve the look of the building and would match the nearby River and Rowing Museum.  Graham commented that Henley and its councillors were also supportive of the application, as were many residents on the Wokingham side of the river.  He went on to state that one of the key greenfield objections related to the proposed increase of the roof height by 1.5 metres.  However, it would still be under the height of the neighbouring Henley Rowing Club.  Graham commented that the applicant would be open to further conditions.  Finally, Graham stated that the application would improve the Wokingham side of the river, and that the Council should support locals in a positive and engaging way.

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

Andrew Mickleburgh queried how the Green Belt designation including the weighting given to this designation impacted by the existing use of the site as a boatyard.  Helen Maynard responded that the existing building on the site had been granted planning permission in 2005 because a previous building on site burnt down. Usually a boat yard and industrial use was not something that would be allowed in the Green Belt, but in 2005 the fire meant that there were very special circumstances to allow this.  A number of specific conditions had been put in place.  Andrew Mickleburgh questioned whether the long term development as a community facility could be taken into account.  Helen Maynard indicated that the application related to the redevelopment of the existing boatyard to remain as a boatyard, but further applications could come forward in the future if required.  Andrew went on to refer to the stated limited public benefit of the proposal, which was cited as a reason for refusal, and asked whether the preservation of the Rose Toop boat collection could be considered a public benefit.  Helen Maynard commented that the application related to the use of land and was not a personal planning permission. 

In response to a question from Wayne Smith regarding the calculation of increases in footprint in the Green Belt, officers confirmed that calculations were based on the original footprint.  Wayne was of the opinion that the application was more compact than the original building, and would entail less encroachment than that set out in the refused application of 2017.  He felt that the application would enhance the character of the area.   In addition, Wayne asked whether a condition that the mezzanine be used in conjunction with, or was ancillary to, the Rose Toop boat collection, could be put in place.  Helen Maynard stated that ancillary to the boatyard could also include features such as the toilets and kitchen facilities.  Brian Conlon added that there was an existing use on a site, with a building that was being proposed to be extended in addition to other alterations.  Fundamentally the use as a boat yard was not altering. The owner could use the mezzanine for boat activities if they wished.  The boat yard was one planning unit.  He cautioned against the use of personal permissions.  Wayne Smith went on to state that based on the volumes, scope and size, he did not believe that the application would cause major harm to the location.

Officers advised that if a personal permission was put in place, once the property ceased to be occupied by the named person, or after a number of years, whichever occurred first, the permission would cease, and materials and equipment relating to that use, would be removed.  It would be difficult to enforce the elements that would relate to any personal permission. 

Stephen Conway commented that officers were recommending refusal on the grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the negative impact on countryside and landscape character.  He commented that the site was previously developed land and there was an existing use as a boatyard in place.  Stephen was of the view that the size of the proposed additional build was small, and was smaller than the original building which had burnt down and only a 12% increase on the existing building.   He questioned whether the special circumstances that had been applied when the original building had burnt down, could be considered to still apply.  Helen Maynard indicated that the raising of the height was considered to have an impact on the openness.  Stephen also asked whether the NPPF referred to supporting businesses in rural locations.  Helen Maynard stated that there was nothing specific in the Green Belt section of the NPPF regarding supporting rural businesses. It stated that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt was inappropriate and that the exceptions were agriculture, forestry, provision for facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries, burial grounds, and allotments, providing the facilities preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with its purposes.  The activities of the boatyard were light industrial.  Stephen queried whether the level of public support could be taken into account as a material planning factor.  Helen Maynard responded that only those material considerations raised could be considered.

Al Neal felt that the cladding would help the building to fit in the surrounding area more and that the extension would not result in a disproportionate increase.

Chris Bowring queried whether an increase in leisure activities would constitute a change in use.  Helen Maynard state that this was outside of the application.

Wayne Smith commented that the overall increase in height based on the original building which burnt down, was 0.93 metres.  The building would still be smaller than surrounding buildings.  With regards to the impact on the countryside, he was of the view that the proposal would enhance the riverside, and that it was not detrimental to the Green Belt and riverside setting.  Helen Maynard highlighted paragraph 149 g) of the NPPF which referred to having no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether people taking out boats constituted recreational use, and was reminded that the current use of the site was light industrial.

Stephen Conway was of the view that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape and character of the Green Belt, or constituted inappropriate development.  He suggested that should the application be approved, that the attachment of appropriate conditions be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.  Brian Conlon commented that there was a standard list of conditions which would be applicable.  An outstanding objection regarding the hedge planting remained which would have to be addressed with the applicant.  Helen Maynard added that the applicant had agreed to the conditions from the Environment Agency.

It was proposed by Wayne Smith that the application be approved on the grounds that it did not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Based on the volumes of the previous building, the application would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape character.  This was seconded by Chris Bowring.

RESOLVED: That application number 220987 be approved on the grounds that it did not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape character.  The finalisation of conditions to be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.