Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of a section of agricultural land to a recreational all-weather cricket track and wicket with mobile cricket cage, plus fencing, parking and associated works.

Applicant: Mr R Bishop

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 40.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Nicola Greenwood, British Horse Society, spoke against the application. Nicola stated that there was genuine concern for the safety of road users should this application be approved, with the nearest corner of the proposed nets to be situated between 8m and 10m from the road boundary, in very close proximity to a blind bend and a single-track lane which enjoyed heavy recreational use. Nicola added that the British Horse Society conducted an equine census in 2021 with the help of DEFRA, which showed that there were 3938 horses living within the Wokingham Borough and 2024 horses living within an hour’s ride of White Horse Lane. Whilst the Council’s appointed equine expert suggested that the applicant could inform horse owners when cricket sessions were due to run, this would be unfeasible given the 117 commercial and private venues located within an hour’s ride of the site. Nicola stated that whilst police and military horses could be trained and conditioned to be resilient to sudden noises, this took an enormous amount of training, and many horses would not be able to reach this level of resilience even if such training opportunities were available. Nicola added that the bridleway network in the Borough was fragmented, and the noise of a bat on ball was not a predictable noise for equines when compared to something like a car engine. Nicola stated that horses could more easily accept sounds where they could see its origin, whilst a horse walking at 4MPH could easily spook to 54MPH. Nicola requested that should the application be approved, that a condition be added requiring the installation of additional horse rider signs 150m either side of the site, and to place the nets a minimum of 60m from the White Horse Lane boundary to follow the trend in the Borough.

Rebecca Margetts stated that she had hoped to see the precise details of exactly where the net would be situated, however this was still not clear. Rebecca added that she was compelled by the representations made by the equine expert, with regards to safety of horses, riders and the general public.

David Cornish was of the opinion that the plans before the Committee were still opaque, and felt that none of the additional information presented on the evening had made it any clearer as to precisely where the net would be situated. David felt that safety of all users of the lane had to be a top priority, and queried whether the change of use would be from agricultural land to commercial land. Mark Croucher, case officer, stated that the change of use would be from agricultural land to sui generis, given the bespoke and unique use of the site.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that whilst the site visit had allayed some of his concerns in relation to noise, access, parking, and the relationship to the wider area, he still had concerns that this application would be a further incursion into the designated agricultural area, without sufficient justification.

Stephen Conway stated that it would be unusual for a cricket net to be situated next to a house and fence, and was of the opinion that this was not a good location for such a development. Stephen noted that the development would also be situated next to a highway which was well used by pedestrians, riders and vehicles.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried what grade the agricultural land was. Mark Croucher stated that he did not have the land grading to hand, however this development would represent a small incursion which would be hard to justify as a reason for refusal.

Wayne Smith was of the opinion that the key issue was whether there was sufficient justification for the development to further encroach on designated agricultural land. Mark Croucher stated that policy CP11 stated that applications had to demonstrate that they would not lead to excessive incursion. Mark added that any reference to ‘very special circumstances’ usually referred to the green belt, which this site was not situated within.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried what constituted excessive encroachment into designated agricultural land. Mark Croucher confirmed that this was a planning judgement.

Alistair Neal commented that the Committee had refused a previous application at a different site citing policy CP11 as the office building in that application had no relationship with the farm. Alistair felt that the same logic should be applied here for consistency. Mark Croucher stated that policy CP11 allowed for diverse and sustainable enterprises which would not lead to excessive encroachment in the countryside.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be refused as the development would lead to further encroachment into designated agricultural land. This was seconded by Rebecca Margetts.

RESOLVED That application number 211335 be refused, as the development would lead to further encroachment into designated agricultural land.