Tel. 0118 974 6690 Email: simon.taylor2@.gov.uk Date: 2 January 2018 Council Ref: Simon Taylor – 172323 Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/C/17/3190455

Development Management P.O. Box 157 Opirim Agala Shute End, Wokingham Planning Inspectorate RG40 1WR Room 3B Eagle Wing Tel: (0118) 974 6000 Temple Quay House Minicom No: (0118) 974 6991 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN [email protected]

Statement of Case – Wokingham Borough Council (WBC)

LPA Reference: 172323 Appeal Reference: APP/X0360/W/17/3190455 and APP/X0360/C/18/3201167 Appellant Name: David and Lyn Ormandy Site Address: Davlin Farm, Worleys Lane, Cockpole Green, RG10 8NT Planning Proposal: Full application for the use of land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential use Enforcement Notice: Unauthorised formation of earth bunds Appeal Start Date: 21 November 2018

1. Statement Authors

1.1. This statement consolidates the work of the Council’s Enforcement Manager, Senior Highways Officer and Agricultural Consultant.

2. Application History

1.2. The planning application (172323) involved the erection of a single storey mobile home with a footprint of 28m2, height of 4m and comprising of two bedrooms, a bathroom and an open plan living area with kitchen. The home is intended as a rural worker’s dwelling, providing on-site accommodation for a key worker to manage the alpaca breeding enterprise. The farming operations include the sale of stock, livery, stud and fleece and other alpaca products.

1.3. Additional unauthorised works were also undertaken on the site, and these comprised the formation of two earth bunds along the southern and eastern edges of the buildings.

1.4. The planning application was made valid on 11 August 2017. It was refused on 17 October 2017, where it was retrospective in nature, for the following reasons:

1

1. There is not an essential need for the mobile home on the site in the Metropolitan Green Belt and countryside. The proposal represents inappropriate development which is therefore, by definition, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt contrary to policy CP1, CP3, CP11 and CP12 of the Core Strategy, TB01 of the MDD and the principles of the Borough Design Guide and Paragraphs 55, 89 and 90 of the NPPF.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Council’s satisfaction that the site is sustainable with regards to its location and access to services. Due to the isolated location the proposed development is not within an acceptable walking distance of local facilities, public transport, amenities and schools. This will result in a high level of car dependency contrary to the sustainable transport goals of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3 and CP6.

1.5. An Enforcement Notice was issued on 24 April 2018 for the following alleged breaches of planning control:

i) Without planning permission, the formation of an earth bund the approximate position of which is shown in solid blue on the plan attached to this notice annotated ‘Bund 1’ ii) Without planning permission, the formation of an earth bund the approximate position of which is shown in solid blue on the plan attached to this notice, annotated ‘Bund 2’. iii) Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and the siting of a caravan for human habitation

1.6. The reasons cited in the Enforcement Notice were that:

i) It appears to the Council that the above breaches of planning control specified at 3(i) and 3(ii) have occurred within the last four years and the alleged breach of planning control specified at 3(iii) above, has occurred within the last ten years. ii) There is no essential need for the caravan on the site in the Metropolitan Greenbelt, Area of Special Landscape Importance and countryside. The use and development represents inappropriate development which is therefore, by definition, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt contrary to policies CP1, CP3, CP11 and CP12 of the Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document and CC01, CC02, CC03, TB01 and TB21 of the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan. iii) The site is not sustainable with regards to its location and access to services. Due to the isolated location the use is not within an acceptable walking distance of local facilities, public transport, amenities and schools. This will result in a high level of car dependency contrary to the sustainable transport goals of the NPPF and Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document policies CP1, CP3 and CP6; and CC01 and CC02 of the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan. iv) The two bunds are alien incongruous features in this Green Belt and Area of Special Landscape Importance (ASLI). They have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and ASLI location. They represent inappropriate development and are therefore contrary to policies

2 CP1, CP3, CP11 and CP12 of the Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document and CC01, CC02, CC03, TB01 and TB21 of the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan.

1.7. WBC’s case for dismissing the appeal against the refusal of the planning application is largely outlined in the officer report and the consultation response from the Council’s Agricultural Consultant (Appendix 1), with additional relevant information contained herein. WBC’s case for dismissing the appeal against the enforcement notice is contained within the expediency report, which forms Appendix 2 to this statement.

1.8. For the purposes of clarity, the reasons can be summarised as being:

a) Lack of demonstrated need for a rural worker’s dwelling, which by extension renders the proposed works as inappropriate development and harmful to the openness and character of the Countryside and Green Belt b) Poor sustainability credentials

1.9. Since the refusal of this application and submission of this appeal, prior approval application 173366 granted permission for an agricultural track from the roadway to the existing barn. It was allowed under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class B of the GPDO.

3. Relevant Policies

3.1. Inappropriate Development within the Green Belt

3.2. The site is outside of the settlement limits and is located in the Green Belt and Countryside. As such, new dwellings are ordinarily resisted. The relevant policies include

a) Paragraph 79 of the NPPF notes that new isolated dwellings should be avoided, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside b) Paragraphs 143-146 of the NPPF state that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate, unless it involves buildings for agriculture or forestry amongst several other exceptions c) Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy and Policy TB01 of the MDD Local Plan state that development must maintain the openness of and not conflict with or harm the purposes of the Green Belt d) Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy states that development outside of development limits is not permitted, unless it involves a sustainable rural or recreational enterprise, where it does not lead to excessive expansion away from the original building and is contained within a building suitable for conversion, amongst other exceptions

3.3. Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy is applicable insofar as it follows the intent of the national policy that applied at the time. Paragraph 4.58 states that agricultural workers dwellings will need to demonstrate compliance with PPS7.

3 3.4. With limited guidance in the NPPF, it has become generally well established that applications for a rural worker’s dwelling need to be considered against the following criteria:

a) Whether there is an essential need for a rural worker to live on site b) Whether that need can be met by existing accommodation c) Whether the enterprise is financially viable or sustainable d) Whether other relevant considerations, such as siting and size, are acceptable

3.5. Failure to satisfy the above policies renders the development also contrary to the following policies relating to character impacts.

3.6. Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that development (1) maintains or enhances the high quality of the environment; and (7) avoids areas of best and most versatile agricultural land.

3.7. Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy states that development (a) must be appropriate in terms of its scale, mass, layout, built form, height and character of the area and must be of high quality design; (c) does not have a detrimental impact upon important…landscape features; and (f) contributes to a sense of place in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with their surroundings.

3.8. Policy CC02 of the MDD Local Plan states that development at the edge of settlements is acceptable where it is demonstrated that it is within development limits and respects the transition between the built up area and the open countryside by taking account of the character of the adjacent countryside and landscape.

3.9. Policy CC03 of the MDD Local Plan aims to protect green infrastructure networks, promote linkages between public open space and the countryside, retain existing trees and establish appropriate landscaping and Policy TB21 requires consideration of the landscape character.

3.10. R1 and RD1 of the Borough Design Guide SPD require that development contribute positively towards and be compatible with the historic or underlying character and quality of the local area.

3.11. Paragraph 170(b) of the NPPF requires that planning applications enhance the natural and local environment by ‘recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland.’

3.12. Sustainability

3.13. Policies CP1 and CP6 of the Core Strategy require that development be sustainable in terms of enhancing the quality of the environment and achieving zero carbon developments with a reduction in the need for travel and the promotion of sustainable transport.

4 3.14. Policy CP9 of the Core Strategy states that the scale of development must reflect the existing or proposed levels of facilities, services and accessibility at or in the location. Paragraph 4.57 in the Core Strategy aims to prevent the proliferation of development in areas away from existing development limits as they are not generally well located for facilities and services and would lead to the increase in use of the private car.

3.15. Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy requires any rural based development to be sustainable.

3.16. As illustrated in paragraphs 7-14 of the NPPF, the overarching theme of decision making is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. In these circumstances, Paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and Paragraphs 102, 103, 108 and 110 seek to ensure the growth of sustainable transport in managing development and approval of planning applications. More specifically, paragraph 108 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable travel in decisions with consideration of:

a) The opportunities for sustainable transport modes that have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; b) Safe and suitable access to the site that are achieved for all users; c) Any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

3.17. This is reinforced in Paragraph 122, which refers to the ‘availability and capacity of infrastructure and services…and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use’.

3.18. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) outlines the intent surrounding rural housing and the need to ensure that it includes sustainable transport solutions.

4. Summary of Case

4.1. Inappropriate Development within the Green Belt

4.2. The officer report contains the Council’s arguments in relation to the lack of any demonstrated need for the on-site accommodation for a rural workers dwelling for the existing alpaca enterprise. Despite the submission of additional commentary in the Appellant’s Statement, the proposal still fails to satisfactorily demonstrate need and financial viability, as is stated in paragraph 3.4 of the Council’s Statement.

4.3. By extension, this renders the scheme as being inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The harm to the openness of the Green Belt and Countryside arising from the positioning of the mobile home is significant. The building is visible in the wider views obtained from the roadway and the mobile nature of the development atypical of the rural landscape. There are no exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the harm. As such, the appeal should be dismissed on these grounds.

5 4.4. The primary contention regarding need remains the shortfall in the number of Standard Man Days (SMDs), and the failure to satisfy with the requirement for a full time worker. If a full time worker was employed, it would also render the enterprise unviable based on current projections.

4.5. Contrary to the reference to a 2010 appeal decision in Section 8 of the Appellant’s Statement, the Council’s Agricultural Consultant argues that the ‘accepted’ standard man hours for alpacas is 8 SMDs per breeding female and 4.5 SMDs per other alpaca. This is because tending is to individuals rather than the herd or flock, as would be the case with other commercial animals such as sheep and cattle.

4.6. The appellant has proposed to reach 22 alpacas (12 breeding and 10 young stock) by the third year. This would only equate to 141 SMDs, which is calculated by multiplying 12 breeders x 8 SMDs and 10 other stock x 4.5 SMDs.

4.7. In addition to SMDs for the chickens and quails, the total by Year 3 is 169 SMDs or 0.61 full time workers. This does not equate to a full time worker. Rather, the enterprise would need to reach 20+ breeding females for a full-time labour unit and 30+ breeding females for adequate income in the third year to be considered viable.

4.8. Sustainability

4.9. By virtue of the lack of any demonstrated need, the development also fails on sustainability grounds.

4.10. The following comments have been prepared by Roger Johnson, Council’s Senior Highways Officer.

Site Location

4.11. The site is accessed from Worleys Lane. Worleys Lane is a single track road with no footways or street lights. The speed limit is 60mph. Turning right out of the site leads to a T junction with Warren Row Road, This is a narrow two way road with no street lights or footways and a 60mph speed limit. Turning left at this junction leads to A4130 White Hill which has bus route 239 on it. West at this junction leads to Henley, east leads to Maidenhead. This is the shortest route to Henley.

4.12. Turning left out of the site leads to a junction with Kentons Lane which, if you go south west leads to the A321, Wargrave Road. Wargrave Road has bus route 850 on it. South along Wargrave Road leads you to Wargrave, north leads to Henley.

Sustainability/Accessibility

4.13. The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transport (CIHT) publication Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (2000) outlines professional guidance on planning for and providing for pedestrians, maintaining pedestrian infrastructure and promoting walking (Appendix 3 includes pages 48 and 49). Paragraph 3.30 states that ‘approximately 80% of walk journeys and walk stages in urban areas are less than one mile. The average length of a walk journey is one kilometre (0.6 miles)’.Table 3.2 from the publication sets out acceptable walking distance to facilities (which do not take in account an individual’s fitness and physical ability and encumbrances, e.g. shopping trolley, pushchair etc.)

6

Town Centre Commuting/School Elsewhere /Sightseeing Desirable 200m 500m 400m Acceptable 400m 1km 800m Preferred 800m 2km 1.2km Suggested Acceptable Walking Distance (CIHT Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot Table 3.2)

4.14. As well as distance, there are many other factors which affect the decision of whether or not to undertake a journey on foot, e.g. type of destination, topography, speed of traffic, footway provision and maintenance, lighting, fear of crime, inconvenient or lack of pedestrian crossing facilities, accident record and alternative options of transport.

4.15. The Appeal Site is not within convenient walking distance of most day to day facilities/services such as senior schools, retail and leisure facilities, medical services and this will discourage future residents of the proposed dwelling from choosing to walk over using the car. Appendix 4 shows the Appeal Site’s location in relation to local facilities. The distances and walking journey times are summarised in Table 4.2 below.

Destination Approx Approx Route Walking Walking Distance Time C of E 800m 10 mins Via Warren Row Road Primary Gillotts Secondary 6.7 km 80 mins Via Warren Row Road, White Academy, Gilllotts Hill, Hart Street, Duke Street, Lane, Henley Greys Road, Gillotts Lane The Piggott C of E 4.4 km 53 mins Via Worleys Lane, Kentons School Lane, Wargrave Road Henley Town Centre 4.6 km 55 mins Via Warren Row Road, White Hill, Hart Street Tesco Supermarket 5.9 km 71 mins Via Warren Row Road, White Reading Road, Hill, Thames Side Reading Henley Road Waitrose, Henley 4.8 km 57 mins Via Warren Row Road, White Hill, Hart Street, King’s Road, York Street. The Horns PH, 744m 9 mins Via Warren Row Road Crazies Hill Nearest bus stop on 18 mins Via Worleys Lane, Kentons 850 route 1 5 km Lane, Wargrave Road

Nearest bus stop on 2.1 km 25 min Via Warren Row Road, White 239 route Hill Wargrave Railway 4.4 km 53 mins Via Worleys Lane, Kentons Station Lane, Wargrave Road, Station Road

7 Henley 4.7 km 56 mins Via Warren Row Road, White Railway Station Hill, Thames Side Station Road Gillotts Swimming 6.7 km 80 mins Via Warren Row Road, White Pool and Fitness Hill, Hart Street, Duke Street, Centre Greys Road, Gillotts Lane. GP Surgery at York 4.8 km 57 mins Via Warren Row Road, White Road Henley Hill, Hart Street, King’s Road, York Street Table 4.2: Walking Distances and Walking Journey Times from the Appeal Site to Local Facilities (NB Walking speed 5 kph and times do not take into account topography)

4.16. To reach any of the above facilities, the routes are along roads with no footways, no street lights and some roads with 60mph speed limits. Walking routes from Henley to the site include White Hill (A4130) which is a long incline and is likely to put off future residents from choosing to walk.

4.17. The development fails to provide attractive, accessible and safe walking routes and is in breach of section 10) of CP1 and section b) of CP3 of the Core Strategy.

4.18. Due to the lack of walking choices, the development is also in breach of section 11) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to show how the site location demonstrates support for opportunities for reducing the need to travel particularly by private car.

4.19. Local facilities are interspersed throughout the adjoining villages. From the distances involved (see table above) and the quality of footway provision a development in this location fails to demonstrate that the choice of walking is a sustainable form of transport and section a) of CP6 of the core strategy, provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice, is not satisfied.

4.20. By failing to discourage car use the development is in breach of section 2) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider environment.

4.21. The nearest bus stops to the appeal site are over the recommended maximum walking distance of 400m. There are two bus routes with bus stops that are between 1.5 km and 2.1 km from the site, one on Wargrave Road A321 with the 850 service and one on White Hill A4130 with the 239 service.

Public Transport - Level of Service

4.22. The NPPF requirement for access to high quality public transport facilities is not quantified but Wokingham Borough Council does specify the ‘good’ standard that is required in the borough at 4.37 (of CP6, Core Strategy).

4.23. In line with the Wokingham District Local Plan definition, good public transport services meet the following requirements:

a) At least a thirty minute service frequency during peak times (7:00 to 9:00 and 16:00 to 19:00 Monday to Saturday); and b) At least an hourly service frequency during off-peak hours (9:00 to16:00 and 19:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and between 7:00 and 22:00 on Sundays).

8 4.24. As mentioned above there are bus stops on two routes between 1.5 km and 2.1 km away from the site. There are no street lights on the roads to the bus stops and only very short lengths of footways on both routes.

4.25. The 850 route is a fairly good service which meets the above description for good standard for Monday to Saturdays but there is no service on Sundays or public holidays.

4.26. The 239 route is quite poor.

4.27. The buses to Henley (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) are scheduled at 9.20, 11.42 and 14.22. There are no buses on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There are buses at 11.50 and 14.20 on Saturdays.

4.28. The buses to Maidenhead (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) are scheduled at 09.38, 12.08 and 14.33. There are no buses on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There are buses at 09.38 and 12.08 on Saturdays.

4.29. There is no service on Sundays or public holidays in either direction.

4.30. Due to the distance the bus stops are located away from the site, the development is also in breach of section 11) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to show how the site location demonstrates support for opportunities for reducing the need to travel particularly by private car.

4.31. Due to the distance the bus stops are located away from the site, a development in this location fails to demonstrate that the choice of bus travel is a sustainable form of transport and section a) of CP6 of the core strategy, provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice, is not satisfied.

4.32. Due to the distance the bus stops are located away from the site and by failing to discourage car use, the development is in breach of section 2) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider environment.

4.33. Wargrave Railway Station is 4.4 km from the appeal site and Henley Railway Station is 4.7 km from the Appeal Site. Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Developments (Extract in appendix 5) recognises that people are generally prepared to walk further to a Railway Station than a bus stop some 800m, however this distance is considerably exceeded in both cases. The distance to the Station would discourage future residents from choosing public transport over using the car. If the future residents wished to get the bus to the railway station, for Wargrave Station the bus stop is 2.1 km away on Wargrave Road A321 and there is a 520m walk from the bus stop to the station in Wargrave. For Henley Station the bus stop is 2.1 km from the site for the 239 route and 1.5 km for the 850 route and the bus stops in Henley are 450m from the station.

4.34. Due to the distance involved, the quality of footways and access to bus services, a development in this location fails to demonstrate that the choice of rail travel is a sustainable form of transport and is in breach of section 10) of CP1 and section b) of CP3 of the core strategy.

9 4.35. This development is also in breach of section 11) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to show how the site location demonstrates support for opportunities for reducing the need to travel particularly by private car.

4.36. Due to the distance involved, the quality of footways and access to bus services, a development in this location fails to demonstrate that the choice of rail travel is a sustainable form of transport and section a) of CP6 of the core strategy, provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice, is not satisfied.

4.37. Due to the location of the development, and by failing to discourage car use over rail, the development is in breach of section 2) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider environment.

4.38. The destinations shown in Appendix 4 and listed in Table 4.2 are mostly within reasonable cycling distance, 5km is generally considered a reasonable cycling distance, but all the routes have unlit sections of roadway. All of the destinations have routes that include roads with speed limits over 60mph. Sustrans’ Publication Lighting of Cycle Paths - Technical Note No. 29 (March 2012) recognises the importance of lighting to make cycle routes desirable and safe to use all day and all year. Page 2 states ‘in urban and urban fringe areas, a substantial number of trips are made for a specific purpose, and if cycling is to play an important role as an alternative to the car for short journeys it must be promoted as an around-the-clock means of transport, rather than just a daylight activity. For cycle journeys that will be made after dark, especially during the winter months’. Page 3 states ‘Lighting should generally be provided on all routes where cycling can be expected after dark. Lighting will be particularly important on commuter routes and routes forming part of safe routes to school’. The absence of lighting on all of the routes to the Appeal Site make these routes generally only acceptable for recreation and daytime use and will discourage future residents from choosing to cycle over using the car. High speed limits are also likely to be significant in discouraging cyclists.

4.39. Cycle routes from Henley to the site include White Hill (A4130) which is a long incline and is likely to put off future residents from cycling.

4.40. The development fails to provide attractive, accessible and safe cycling routes and is in breach of section 10) of CP1 and section b) of CP3 of the core strategy.

4.41. Due to the lack of cycling choices, the development is also in breach of section 11) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to show how the site location demonstrates support for opportunities for reducing the need to travel particularly by private car.

4.42. A development in this location fails to demonstrate that the choice of cycling is a sustainable form of transport and section a) of CP6 of the core strategy, provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice, is not satisfied.

4.43. By failing to discourage car use rather than cycling, the development is in breach of section 2) of CP1 of the core strategy as it fails to minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider environment.

Summary and Conclusions

10 4.44. The development is in breach of policies in the NPPF as the site is not in a sustainable location. The site is not in a location which is or could be made sustainable in the terms of the NPPF paragraph 103 (through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes).

4.45. The Appeal Site is not within convenient walking distance of many day to day facilities/services such as senior schools, retail facilities etc., and this will discourage future residents of the proposed dwelling from choosing to walk over using the car.

4.46. Due to the distance involved, the quality of footways and access to bus services, this would discourage future residents from choosing to use the bus services over using the car.

4.47. Due to the distance involved, the quality of footways and from the frequency and access to bus services, a development in this location fails to demonstrate that the choice of rail travel is a sustainable form of transport and would discourage future residents from choosing rail travel over using the car.

4.48. The Appeal Site is not in a cycle friendly location and this will discourage future residents of the proposed dwellings from choosing to cycle over using the car.

4.49. The development will result in a high level of car dependency contrary to the sustainable transport goals of the NPPF.

4.50. This development is in breach of sections 2), 10) and 11) of CP1, section b) of CP3 and section a) of CP6 of the Core Strategy and policies CC01 and CC02 of the Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan as the site is not in a sustainable location and is outside the settlement limits.

5. Response to Points in Appellant’s Statement

5.1. APP/X0360/C/18/3201167

5.2. The Council wholeheartedly disagrees with the logic that the deposit of soil in the form of a barrow is not a bund, as is suggested in Section 1.

5.3. The Statement suggests that the bunds form part of the works associated with F/2012/1478, being the approval for the construction of an agricultural shed. The approved plans make no reference to such movement of soil and the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application suggests that the barn would fit within the landscape. Furthermore, it is highly questionable as to whether such groundworks would result in this level of soil disturbance sufficient to create the bunds.

5.4. At 1(e) of the Appellant’s statement, there is a suggestion that such bunds are not uncommon requirements requested by LPAs. This is a broad statement with no basis and is disputed by the Council.

5.5. The Council also disputes that the bunds form a fence, wall or other means of enclosure for the purposes of permitted development, as is suggested in 1(h) of the Appellant’s statement. At the very least, it is not fully enclosing the site and is easily

11 accessible over the bund. The Appellant’s statement would also seem to include the hedge as part of the permitted development. Landscaping is not defined as development and it would not be within the intent of Part 2, Class A of the GPDO to include landscaping as permitted development.

5.6. APP/X0360/W/17/3190455

5.7. The main matters of dispute is found in Paragraphs 4.1 onwards of this Statement.

5.8. The appeal decision cited at Section 8 of the Appellant’s Statement (Land at Dusty Fox Farm) refers to 19 breeding alpacas at Year 1. Furthermore, the table presented at Appendix 5 refers to 18 breeding alpacas at year 1. These are substantially greater numbers than the 12 breeders within the subject appeal and would result in greater Standard Man Days (SMDs) than the subject appeal. The appeal decision is also dated from 2010, which is more than eight years ago.

5.9. Section 15 refers to the presence of a worker reducing stress but there is no such evidence to substantiate this statement. The Council would suggest that the opposite would be a better outcome for the stress management of the alpaca. The British Alpaca Society suggests that keeping a herd of alpacas benefits the entire herd. (Source: http://www.bas-uk.com/alpacapedia/faqs)

5.10. Section 16 of the Appellant’s Statement refers to difficulties at birth, including referring to the fact that births can occur at any time of the day or night. The British Alpaca Society indicate that births tend to occur in the morning. (Source: http://www.bas-uk.com/alpacapedia/faqs)

5.11. Section 22 of the Appellant’s Statement suggests support from Wargrave Parish Council. This is only if Wokingham Council were minded to approve the development. Wargrave Parish Council objected to the original planning application.

6. Conditions and Informatives

6.1. In the event of an approval, the following conditions and informatives should be applied.

6.2. Conditions

1. Approved Details

This permission is in respect of the submitted drawing numbered SA/2017/DLO/01, SA/2017/DLR/02, SA/2017/DLR/03 and SA/2017/DLR/04, all received by the Local Planning Authority on 02 August 2017. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the application form and associated details hereby approved.

2. Landscaping

12 The mobile home shall not be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include, as appropriate, proposed finished floor levels or contours, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials and minor artefacts and structure (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, external services, etc). Soft landscaping details shall include planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, and implementation timetable.

All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a timetable approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved and permanently retained.

3. Car parking and turning

The mobile home shall not be occupied until vehicle parking and turning space has been provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The vehicle parking and turning space so-approved shall be retained in accordance with the approved details and the parking space remain available for the parking of vehicles at all times and the turning space shall not be used for any purpose other than vehicle turning.

4. Cycle parking

The mobile home shall not be occupied until details of secure and covered bicycle storage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The cycle storage/ parking shall be implemented in accordance with such details as may be approved before occupation of the development hereby permitted, and shall be permanently retained in the approved form for the parking of bicycles and used for no other purpose.

5. Drainage details

The mobile home shall not be occupied until details of foul and storm water sewage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved method of disposal shall be permanently so-retained for the life of the development.

6. Development to be removed after temporary period

The mobile home hereby permitted shall be removed and the land, including the two bunds, restored to its original condition and reseeded with grass on or before three years from the date of this planning permission, in accordance with a scheme of work that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

13 7. Cessation of agricultural use

If the agricultural farm at Davlin Farm should cease operating, then it shall be removed from the land, and the land (including the two bunds) shall be restored to its condition before the development took place within 3 months of the date that the agricultural use ceased, in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

8. Restriction of agricultural occupancy

The occupation of the mobile home shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working within the subject agricultural holding, and to any resident dependants.

9. Access surfacing

The mobile home hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used until the vehicular access has been surfaced with a permeable and bonded material across the entire width of the access for a distance of 10 metres measured from the carriageway edge.

10. Location of gate

The mobile home hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used until the existing vehicular entrance gates (or any new entrance gates) are relocated/erected no closer than 10 metres from the highway boundary and so as to open away from the highway.

Reason: To ensure that vehicles do not obstruct the highway whilst waiting for gates or barriers to be opened or closed, in the interests of road safety. Relevant policy: Core Strategy policies CP3 and CP6.

11. Bin storage

The mobile home hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used until a bin storage area has been provided. The bin storage area and facilities shall be permanently so-retained and used for no purpose other than the temporary storage of refuse and recyclable materials.

12. Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, E and F of Part 1 of the Second Schedule the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) () Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, enlargement or alterations permitted shall be carried out without the express permission in writing of the local planning authority.

6.3. Informatives

1. Changes to the Approved Plans

The applicant is reminded that should there be any change from the approved drawings during the build of the development this may require a fresh planning

14 application if the changes differ materially from the approved details. Non-material changes may be formalised by way of an application under s.96A Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Pre Commencement Details

Where this permission requires further details to be submitted for approval, the information must formally be submitted to the Council for consideration with the relevant fee. Once details have been approved in writing the development should be carried out only in accordance with those details. If this is not clear please contact the case officer to discuss.

3. Protected Species

This permission does not convey or imply any approval or consent required under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for protected species. The applicant is advised to contact Natural England with regard to any protected species that may be found on the site.

4. CIL Liable Development

The development hereby permitted is liable to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy. The Liability Notice issued by Wokingham Borough Council will state the current chargeable amount. A revised Liability Notice will be issued if this amount changes. Anyone can formally assume liability to pay, but if no one does so then liability will rest with the landowner. There are certain legal requirements that must be complied with. For instance, whoever will pay the levy must submit an Assumption of Liability form and a Commencement Notice to Wokingham Borough Council prior to commencement of development. For more information see - http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/developers/cil/cil-processes/

7. Appendices

7.1. Appendix 1: Agricultural Consultant’s consultation response

7.2. Appendix 2: Expediency report for unauthorised bunds

7.3. Appendix 2: Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (pages 48 and 49)

7.4. Appendix 3: Site location in relation to local facilities

7.5. Appendix 4: Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Developments (1999) (pages 97 and 98)

Simon Taylor Senior Planning Officer Wokingham Borough Council

15 2 January 2018

16