Agenda item

Refurbishment of Buildings 12 and 13 for storage use with ancillary offices (4 units); Replacement of Building 4; Refurbishment of Buildings 14 for storage use with new archway feature linked to Building 4; Erection of Building 1 for office use; Change of use of Units 2-3 (Dutch Barn) to provide storage and distribution of gas bottles and storage and construction of wooden sheds; Change of use of land opposite Units 2-3 to display of wooden sheds; Provision of parking for proposed new uses - Part Retrospective (as amplified by additional information received 19 July 2022 and 15 August 2022 and as amplified by plan received 1 December 2022 and 16 January 2023).

The committee considered planning application P21/S1848/FUL for the refurbishment of Buildings 12 and 13 for storage use with ancillary offices (4 units); Replacement of Building 4; Refurbishment of Buildings 14 for storage use with new archway feature linked to Building 4; Erection of Building 1 for office use; Change of use of Units 2-3 (Dutch Barn) to provide storage and distribution of gas bottles and storage and construction of outdoor structures; Change of use of land opposite Units 2-3 to display of outdoor structures; Provision of parking for proposed new uses – Part Retrospective. (As amplified by additional information received 19 July 2022 and 15 August 2022 and as amplified by plan received 1 December 2022 and 16 January 2023), on land at Blounts Farm, Blounts Court Road, Sonning Common.  

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objections of both Sonning Common and Rotherfield Peppard Parish Councils.

The planning officer informed the committee that the application was for various changes of use to buildings and that the site had a complex planning history, noting specifically that the application was mostly retrospective. The site was highlighted as being within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but that the proposed building would be in the farmyard and enclosed by other surrounding buildings. The planning officer also noted that a number of buildings on the site benefited from lawful development including the use of land for storage of motor-vehicles, and that several buildings were established business sites. She also noted the Local Plan and Sonning Common neighbourhood plan which supported proposals to retain business.

The planning officer informed the members about the varying uses of the buildings, what they were proposed to be, and what works were proposed and already carried out. She emphasised that the work completed had used good materials and was sympathetic to the area and therefore, she found it acceptable. She also highlighted that a building on the site was built without permission but was subject to a separate application.

The planning officer noted that a primary concern by some members of the public who made representations was about the bridleway through the site. As it formed an important part of the public rights of way network, concerns were raised about the bridleway becoming more dangerous due to the intensification of site leading to increased traffic volumes. However, she noted that the applicant had agreed an alternative path which went around the site and was detailed in a proposed condition on the approval of the application.

Since the site visit was conducted, the planning officer made several alterations to the proposed conditions as there was no longer a need for pre-commencement conditions five and six as the existing buildings were seen to be constructed with good materials and that their style was sympathetic to surrounding area. A new condition to remove permitted development rights was also proposed on all the buildings covered in the permission.

Overall, the established business site was promoted by local plan policy and that, although it was in the AONB, it was sympathetic to the surrounding area. Therefore, on the planning balance, the planning officer considered that the application was acceptable but found it regrettable that the applicant had not originally submitted a planning application.

Neil Davis, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application. Members inquired into one of the objections which referred to lighting and asked for clarification about the proposed condition around this. In response, the planning officer confirmed that a lighting scheme would need to be submitted within three months of the application being granted to ensure that they would be suitable for their position in an AONB.

On the bridleway path, members asked the planning officer if she was satisfied with the change in layout as it was originally suggested to go around edge of the site, but the agent and applicant agreed with the rights of way team to move that bridleway further out into the field to allow for viable farming either side of the path. The planning officer confirmed that if rights of way team accepted the change, then they would have no objection as well. She also noted that the treatment of the bridleway would be addressed in the conditions and agreed with the county council’s rights of way team. The committee also inquired into when the new bridleway would be completed and the planning officer confirmed that the details for it, including a timetable for completion, would be need within three months of the permission being granted.

Members asked about the potential use of permitted development rights for the site and if they could be used to complete some of the applied for works and the planning officer confirmed that none of the application was covered by permitted development rights.

The committee thanked the officer for the detail in the application and for the site visit which they found very informative. Members acknowledged that the quality of the works already done was excellent and that while on site there was few vehicular movements. Although they agreed that they would have like to see the application before the work on the site was started, they were satisfied that the buildings were being refurbished and retained for business use and complied with local plan policies.

The committee emphasised the importance of the redirected bridleway being implemented in a prompt manner after the approval of the application and that it would be essential given the increased use of the site that would result from the application, although some questioned the space provided on both sides of the proposed path, overall, they accepted the route that was proposed.

As the committee agreed that the application should be approved but there should be explicit reference to the proposed bridleway in condition 11, they agreed to authorise the head of planning to approve the application, in consultation with the chair, as to ensure the wording on the bridleway was appropriate.

A motion, moved and seconded, to authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the chair, to approve the application was carried when put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to authorise the head of planning to approve planning application P21/S1848/FUL, in consultation with the chair of the planning committee, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission

2. Approved plans

3. Cycle parking

4. Vision splay details

5. Landscaping Scheme

6. Lighting

7. Tree Protection

8. Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy

9. Specified use within Use Class E(a)

10 Withdrawal of Permitted Development commercial to residential use

11. Public right of way details

Informative:

Thames Water