Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Retention of change of use of (equestrian) livery stables to (Sui Generis) car sales and (Use Class B2 general industrial) car servicing.

RESOLVED: That application 23/01259/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Audio Recording: 3 hour 9 minutes 34 seconds

 

The Chair advised that Councillor Steve Jarvis was to speak as a Member Advocate against this item and would therefore move to the public gallery and not take part in the debate or vote.

 

N.B. Councillor Steve Jarvis moved to the public gallery at 22:40

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the text at paragraph 3.7 suggested that the Conservation Officer was objecting to the application however, at paragraph 4.3.28 of the report it states that concerns had been raised by the Conservation Officer but, there were no heritage reasons to object to this application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 23/01259/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The Chair invited Parish Councillor Alistair Schofield to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Schofield thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The Parish Council had objected to the original livery application for this site on the grounds that it was inappropriate.

·       The British Horse Society confirmed that the site did not have sufficient land to support a livery with 12 stables.

·       The building built as a garage or feed store under that planning permission was built to a standard far in excess of a livery premises.

·       A motor business opened soon after completion of this buildings and the owners requested retrospective planning permission to change the use of the building, which was refused.

·       A U shaped building was then erected shortly after the planning refusal, the premises were again in excess of those of a livery.

·       A new access to the site was then built on the southern side of the site, and this included the removal of footpath sign.

·       The two buildings meant for a livery are currently being used for motor cars.

·       The intention of the 2015 planning application was flawed and did not comply with the planning policies with respect to intentional unauthorised developments.

·       There were concerns regarding the unauthorised development in green belt land as stated in paragraph 4.3.39 of the report which were pertinent in the case.

·       The Parish Council believed that there was insufficient land for a livery on this site and by the applicants own admissions the buildings were built to a higher standard than those for a livery.

·       It was believed that it was never the intention to use this site for a livery and the original application was a ruse to obtain permission to build two buildings.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Schofield for his presentation and invited Councillor Steve Jarvis to speak against this application. Councillor Jarvis thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Permission was granted in 2015 for stables and a feed store on the site.

·       The site and building were never used as stables or built to the conformities of the approved plans.

·       The use of this site for motor cars was inappropriate development in the greenbelt and not the permission obtained.

·       The applicant claimed that there were very special circumstances for this application as the site contains special German motor cars and an established business however, this business was established in direct contention to the planning permission obtained.

·       The report states that there are fewer vehicles parked around the site as a motor business than would be expected from a livery, yet there were a significant number of vehicles parked around the buildings in the presentation.

·       The test in the NPPF for very special circumstance states that it will not exist unless the potential harm was clearly outweighed by other considerations.

·       The consideration that the business had been trading for 4 years on greenbelt land without planning permission dis not outweigh the inappropriateness of this matter.

·       The recommendation relied on the fact that there was the same traffic gernerated amount for the car business and a livery business.

·       The application did not meet the criteria for very special circumstances.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Jarvis for his presentation and invited Mr Luke Papworth to speak in support of the application. Mr Papworth thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Since 2002 the Friends Green Farm site had been made up of different units and businesses.

·       After the 2015 application the farm was sold and split up. He brought part of the site with his brother.

·       The planning permission was granted when the site consisted of 12 acres of land.

·       At the time of the sale the construction of the livery had begun, but he completed the building as his own business was expanding.

·       The business had been established for 9 years.

·       Under advice from a friend, an application was submitted and refused for the site to be used for cars.

·       After seeking professional advice and working with Officers, this planning application was submitted, and appropriate Conditions had been agreed.

·       A traffic survey was submitted to Highways along with entrance splays and Highways had no objections to this application.

·       The only consultee objection was from the Parish Council.

·       The business employed 3 people and supported other local businesses in the area.

·       There would be less traffic to the site compared to a livery and shorter operating hours.

·       Motor specialists around the country used similar styled buildings, including a nearby Lotus specialist.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor David Levett, Mr Papworth stated that his father was a riding instructor, the old buildings were demolished with the intention to rebuild the site. The building had commenced when the farm was put up for auction at which point her and his brother were able to afford to buy the farmhouse and 2 acres of land.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Papworth for his presentation and invited the Senior Planning Officer to respond to any points raised.

 

The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was no concrete evidence that this was an intentional unauthorised development as mentioned in the report, there were only some suspicions.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

 

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       The proposed development did not comply with the NPPF.

·       No comparison could be made regarding traffic to the site as the site was never trading as a livery.

·       The application was for temporary permission and would be monitored.

·       Using the assumption that the information from the applicant was correct, then on balance there was less harm that leaving the situation unmonitored.

·       This application was inappropriate and went against section 155 of the NPPF.

·       Enforcement could be used to resolve matters.

 

In response to points raised in debate, the Development and Conservation Manager stated that:

 

·       The NPPF refers to very special circumstances but there were exceptions to the policy.

·       Had the site ever been used for a livery, then very special circumstance would not have been required, and the change of use would have complied with a specified exception.

·       The application was recommended for approval as the material considerations outweighed the harms to the greenbelt and therefore there were very special circumstances.

·       The buildings were currently being used for motor vehicles, there were some suspicions that this was the initial intention, however the applicant has stated that his parents did intend to use the site for a livery and that their circumstances changed. 

 

In response to points raised in debate, the Senior Planning Officer stated that:

 

·       In paragraph 4.3.15 of the report it was stated that the development did not comply to any of the excepted exemption listed in sections 154 and 155 of the NPPF.

·       It was acknowledged that the development was inappropriate development in the greenbelt and conflicted with purpose e, to assist in urban regeneration.

·       The NPPF stated that if very special circumstances could be demonstrated, that clearly outweighed the harms to the greenbelt by reason of inappropriateness, a development could be accepted.

 

Councillor Simon Bloxham proposed and Councillor Michael Muir seconded and following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 23/01259/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.