Skip to main content

Agenda item

22/04337/FUL- Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington

Summary

Change of use of the land from agricultural to outdoor live performance venue (sui generis), an engineering operation resulting in a sunken amphitheatre, erection of a kitchen pod, installation of a permanent pavilion base, temporary use of part of the site for car parking, laying out of an access track (part retrospective) at Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0XW

 

Case Officer

Harrison Bowley

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Cunningham

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

Minutes:

The applications 22/04337/FUL and 22/04303/FUL were both dealt with by the committee as one item, due to them being on the same site. At the Chair’s discretion, the Public Speakers combined their speaking time and therefore had six minutes instead of three to speak. The Ward Member had a combined speaking time ten minutes instead of five minutes.

 

The first application (22/04337/FUL) was for the change of use of the land from agricultural to outdoor live performance venue (sui generis), an engineering operation resulting in a sunken amphitheatre, erection of a kitchen pod, installation of a permanent pavilion base, temporary use of part of the site for car parking, laying out of an access track (part retrospective) at Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0XW.

 

The recommendation by the case officer was to permit.

 

The second application (22/04303/FUL) was for the erection of a marquee pavilion, installation of outdoor lighting structures and installation of other 'pod' structures for a temporary period each calendar year from 30 April to 1 October to facilitate outdoor leisure events at Berry Bank, Main Road, Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0XW. The recommendation by officers was to permit.

 

The Senior Case Officer introduced the application. The Senior Case Officer stated that

one of the objections had made reference to the land ownership in light of the previous dissolution of the applicant- Berry Bank and Park Events LTD. As Berrybank Park Events Limited had been established in the place of the original applicant, carrying over two of its directors, the Senior Case Officer confirmed that they were satisfied that there was no change in land ownership.

 

Cllr David Thorpe representing Oddington Parish Council addressed the Committee, objecting to the application.

 

Mr Gary Johnson addressed the committee to object to the application, making reference to noise and the impact on his equestrian business.

 

The Ward Member, Councillor David Cunningham addressed the Committee, highlighting community concerns, including concerns over the live event and noise.

 

It was noted that the Site Inspection Briefing had occurred ahead of the committee in July and the Chair invited those who had attended it to provide their feedback to the committee.

 

Members highlighted that the road was busy, with the existing structures visible from the road. Members also stated that they perceived applications for such live events to be increasing, making reference to an application decided by the Licensing Sub-Committee for a premises license at the Badminton Estate.

 

Member Questions

 

Members asked for more further details on the noise complaints. The Environmental Health Officer had stated that six complaints had been received between 2022 and September 2023. Environmental Health Officers had been in touch with the complainants and issued them with diary record sheets and a noise recording app. The Environmental Health Officer stated that the next step would be for officers to visit the site to record the noise levels during an event but that Environmental Health officers had not yet visited the site.

 

A condition had been put in place to require a noise management plan, which would be the Applicant’s responsibility to adhere to. The Council would also undertake regular monitoring as part of environmental health processes.

 

The Interim Development Manager stated that the permission would allow the applicants to hold six amplified events a year, but that there was flexibility to apply for further events.

 

There had been verbal updates to conditions 10 and 11, which the Senior Case Officer explained;

 

Condition 10:

 

The music and film noise level emitted from the site shall not within 1m of the façade of any noise sensitive premises, exceed 55dB LAeq,15min and 73db in the 63 and 125 Hz frequency band. 

 

Condition 11:

 

From the date of the permission hereby granted the Berrybank Park Noise Management Plan 2023 dated 30/01/2023 shall be reviewed and updated annually, in response to recorded complaints, identified inefficiencies and any learning undertaken during the lifetime of the consent. A revised Noise Management Plan, including a record of all complaints received, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to 31st January each year and shall be reviewed and determined as appropriate within 28 days of receipt. The revised Noise Management Plan, shall then be implemented in strict accordance with the details approved each year.

 

The Interim Development Manager reminded members that though the application was a retrospective application, it must be judged on the application’s merit (as they would with a non-retrospective application), and additional readings from Environmental Health would only be appropriate if members could not otherwise decide the application.

 

The Interim Development Manager also stated that temporary permission could be granted if members felt it to be appropriate.

 

The Licensing aspect of the application was discussed, with the interim Head of Legal Services stating that due to the size of the event, it would likely be dealt with under a temporary event notice. As the Senior Case Officer stated that the events were happening approximately every weekend, the Interim Head of Legal stated they would discuss this with licensing, as this may be over the allowed limit without requiring a premises license.

 

Members discussed the setting of the site, which was confirmed by the officer to be the 7C ‘high wold’ area, as defined by the national landscape. The Case Officer stated that National Character Assessment described what was typically in the area and was a material planning consideration, as referenced in the report.

 

Members asked if any parts of the development were considered agricultural works. The Senior Case Officer stated that due to the scale of the work, it would be considered engineering work, and was therefore considered to require planning permission. Members asked if the applicant should have utilised existing buildings in the development. The Senior Case Officer stated that it was regrettable that they did not, but that it may not have been practical due to the scale and nature of development.

 

Members asked about the cherry orchard, which they highlighted were not fruit bearing nor native. Members also stated that they felt the style the trees had been planted in to be an urban one, which they considered to be inappropriate in a rural area. The Senior Case Officer recognised this as a missed opportunity, but otherwise stated they would need to be removed and replaced, so found them acceptable on balance, though native and fruiting cherry trees would have been preferred. The Senior Case Officer stated that the Committee could place a condition seeking that any replacement be native and fruiting, or to ask the applicant to submit a new landscape plan.

 

Members asked whether the impact on the objector’s equestrian business, was considered an impact on agriculture, therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy EC5. The Interim Development Manager and Interim Head of Legal Services both stated that equestrian use, beyond simply grazing was not considered agricultural use.

 

Members asked what the speed limit was on the road, and whether the access was safe. The Senior Case Officer confirmed this to be 50 mph. The Highways Officer stated that the access was considered to be safe in terms of visibility.

 

Member Comments

 

Members stated that they felt that the proposal was contrary to Local Plan Policy EC5, as the scale and design of the development did not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. Members stated the proposal was contrary to EC10 as it did not have a functional relationship and special affinity with the historic and natural heritage of the area.

 

Members raised concerns about the noise and disruption of the proposals, and did not feel that as a tourist attraction the proposal identified an opportunity that was not met by the existing facilities.

 

Councillor Mark Harris proposed refusing the change of use.

 

Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: To REFUSE the proposal

 

Reasons for refusal:

 

1.    The application proposed a form of development which would be of a

scale and design that fails to contribute positively to the character and

appearance of the area. The scheme would fail to create a functional

relationship or special affinity with the historic and natural heritage of the wider

area. The development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policies EC5

and EC10.

 

2.    The site was located within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty (AONB). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRWO) Act

2000 stated that relevant authorities have a statutory duty to conserve and

enhance the natural beauty of the AONB. The proposed development would

result in the introduction of intrusive and incongruous features that would

diminish the character and special qualities of the open rural landscape. The

development would also result in an intensive use of the site, through

additional visitors, vehicle movements and noise, which would harm the

tranquillity of the area. The development would therefore fail to conserve or

enhance the character and special qualities of the AONB, contrary to Local

Plan Policies EN4 and EN5 and Section 15 of the NPPF.

 

3.    The application site lay within close proximity to a number of adjoining

residential properties. The proposed development, by virtue of the number and

type of events, visitors and traffic movements, would result in an unacceptable

risk to public health or safety through the generation of an unacceptable level

of noise pollution. The additional noise would be detrimental to the enjoyment

of neighbouring properties and would harm the amenity of near by dwellings,

and would not be mitigated by the submitted Noise Management Plan. The

development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policies EN2 and EN15

and paragraphs 174 and 185 of the NPPF.

 

Voting Record: For  8, Against 1, Abstention/Did not vote 1

 

For

Against

Abstain/ Did not vote

Ray Brassington

Patrick Coleman

Andrew Maclean*

Julia Judd

 

 

Mark Harris

 

 

Daryl Corps

 

 

Andrew Maclean

 

 

David Fowles

 

 

Ian Watson

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

Juliet Layton

 

 

 

*As Councillor Maclean had left the room during the debate, he could not vote

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages