Agenda item

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Full application for the change of use of agricultural land to mixed-use of agricultural and the keeping and grazing of horses, plus the provision of a vehicular turning circle.  Part retrospective.

Applicant: Monopro Ltd, C/O Dan Weaver, Pegasus Planning Group Ltd.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 15 to 40.

The Committee was advised that the Members’ Update included:

·         Proposed amendment to condition 4;

·         Correction to consultation responses received.

Members had visited the site on Friday 12 August 2016.

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.  She commented that Wokingham Town Council had concerns about the possibility of the land being used for commercial use and the potential erosion of the settlement gap between Wokingham and Barkham.  Concerns had also been raised about the suitability of the unadopted road, Limmerhill Road, for regular traffic, and highway safety at the Barkham Road access point.  She asked that if the application were allowed, that no commercial activities be permitted.

Andrew Bowles, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He raised concerns regarding highway safety, stating that the junction of Limmerhill Road and Barkham Road was difficult to negotiate due to poor sight lines and fast moving traffic.  This issue was exacerbated by large, slow moving vehicles such as horse boxes and delivery lorries.  There had been 4 serious accidents in the area since 2010.  The issue of the suitability of the unadopted road for the anticipated number of vehicle movements was raised.  In addition Mr Bowles stated that the application would have an impact on the visual amenity of the area, an impact on residential amenity through the loss of hedgerows and the smell of horse manure and urine at times and would erode the settlement gap between Wokingham and Barkham.

Ben Cook, agent, spoke in support of the application.  He commented that the field was occupied by a main tenant with 5 to 6 horses.  There were also two single tenants with a horse each and the main tenant was also looking for another single tenant.  It would be a small social arrangement rather than commercial arrangement.  The applicant was willing to limit the number of horses on the site at one time to 10.  The horses would live at and be ridden on the site which would reduce the number of vehicle movements to approximately 5 to 6 per day, possibly more at weekends.  There would be little need for extra feed deliveries in addition to the hay deliveries.  In addition there would be a no grazing zone to the north of the site, nearest to residential properties, between April and September.  Mr Cook commented that currently the site was agricultural use and that vehicle movements and the size of vehicles used would potentially be less if the use was changed to mixed-use of agricultural and the keeping and grazing of horses.  He requested that Condition 4 be further amended to include permission for private recreational riding.

Members asked about commercial activities, loss of amenity and the settlement gap between Wokingham and Barkham.  The Planning Officer commented that commercial activity did not form part of the application.  With regards to loss of amenity, Members were reminded of the proposed no grazing zone to the north of the site during the summer months.  A manure management plan had been considered unnecessary due to the small number of horses.  The Planning Officer also commented that the settlement gap would not be eroded as the application did not propose structural additions and the countryside use would be retained.  CPE 2 encouraged rural activities.

A number of Members expressed concern about highway safety and the width and quality of the road.  The Service Manager, Highways Development Management stated that the 4 accidents referred to within Mr Bowles’ presentation, had not occurred at the junction and were unrelated in each case.  He was satisfied that access and visibility was sufficient.  Limmerhill Road was a private road managed by residents.  The Service Manager, Highways Development Management emphasised that under the current agricultural use unlimited trips could be made to the site and that vehicles used for agriculture uses were often larger and slower moving than a vehicle towing a horsebox.

Councillor Bowring proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of highway safety at the junction of Limmerhill Road with Barkham Road.  This proposal was seconded by Councillor Kaiser.  Upon being put to the vote, with the Chairman exercising his casting vote, the proposal was lost. 

A Member questioned whether the application could be deferred until the Village Green application had been determined.  The Borough Solicitor advised that this did not constitute a planning reason to defer the application.

The Committee voted on the proposal to approve the application, subject to the conditions set out on Agenda pages 16 to 17, with condition 4 amended as set out in the Members’ Update, the Chairman exercising his casting vote.

Upon being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED:  That application No. 161092 be approved, subject to the conditions set out on Agenda pages 16 to 17, with condition 4 amended as set out in the Members’ Update.