Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSEVATION MANAGER

 

Change of Use of agricultural land to provide dog training/exercise facilities

RESOLVED: That application 17/04255/FP.be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and subject to the following additional conditions:

 

1.         Within 6 months of the date of this planning permission, the applicant shall have entered into a legal agreement with Hertfordshire County Council to secure the implementation of a surface improvement scheme for BOAT Offley 20 which accesses the application site.

 

Reason: To ensure a maintenance programme for upgrading the condition of the BOAT from additional traffic caused by this development, in the interests of highway safety and amenity.

 

2.         The use of land hereby permitted shall cease within 2 years of the date of this decision notice unless the works secured through Condition 1 above have been implemented in full.

 

Reason: If the maintenance programme required under Condition 1 cannot be secured within a reasonable timeframe this use of land must cease, in the interests of highway safety and amenity.

 

A Member expressed concern that the objectors left the room before the public participation regarding this item was concluded.

 

The Planning Lawyer confirmed the wording of the Member Code of conduct regarding this matter.

 

The Chairman agreed to consult with the Monitoring Officer regarding this matter.

 

Councillors Barnard and Frost returned to the room.

Change of Use of agricultural land to provide dog training/exercise facilities.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager informed Members that since the report was written he had held further discussions with Herts County Council Highways and Rights of Way Officers. It was recognised that this was a rural enterprise which would cause additional traffic on a byway and Highways had recommended two additional conditions being:

 

1.         Within 6 months of the date of this planning permission, the applicant shall have entered into a legal agreement with Hertfordshire County Council to secure the implementation of a surface improvement scheme for BOAT Offley 20 which accesses the application site.

 

Reason: To ensure a maintenance programme for upgrading the condition of the BOAT from additional traffic caused by this development, in the interests of highway safety and amenity.

 

2.         The use of land hereby permitted shall cease within 2 years of the date of this decision notice unless the works secured through Condition 1 above have been implemented in full.

 

Reason: If the maintenance programme required under Condition 1 cannot be secured within a reasonable timeframe this use of land must cease, in the interests of highway safety and amenity.

 

In his view, these conditions would meet two of the objectives in the Planning Policy Framework being:

 

Paragraph 28

To promote rural enterprise and diversification to encourage sustainable rural businesses.

 

Paragraph 17

To protect living conditions.

 

These conditions struck a reasonable balance to manage the business and prevent damage to the right of way.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of planning application 17/04255/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

Councillor Strong, registered Councillor Advocate, was not present at the meeting.

 

Councillors Faye Frost and David Barnard, speaking under the Councillors right to speak, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/04255/FP.

 

Councillor Frost advised that she had called in the application due to the strong contrary views of the Parish Council and declared that she lived along byway 20.

 

She stated that she had been advised that she could not speak as a Councillor Advocate due to her position on the District Council and was exercising her right to speak and presenting the following information as a serving Parish Councillor on Offley and Cockernhoe Parish Council.

 

She had listened to all debates with an open mind and left the meetings where the application was discussed prior to any decisions being made.

 

Councillor Frost informed Members that East Lodge was situated behind BOAT 20, which was a farm track that was the main access route for agricultural vehicles to service the fields surrounding the property.

 

Heavy traffic along the track had led to its degradation, creating large pot holes that had cost the County Council a lot of money to fill.

 

After many years of campaigning Byway 20, which was also subject to criminal activity, was recently downgraded, with two heavy metal gates installed, preventing parallel axel vehicles from driving down the track, other than those with written permission from Herts County Council wishing to access properties on the nearby estate.

 

If permission were granted with the conditions attached, the dog training business at East Lodge would be allowed to trade between the hours of 9am and 5pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 9am to 1pm on Saturdays with 4 cars permitted at any one time.

 

The current operator had transit type vans and the clients drove SUVs in the main.

 

This was already tearing up Byway 20 and severely eroding the grass verges, with vehicles going around the pot holes.

 

Supposing that these sessions were one hour in duration, that would mean 32 in and 32 out traffic movements per day in addition to the instructor’s vans and the owners.

 

The track could not sustain this continued commercial use and surely tax payer should not be expected to maintain the track for such reasons.

 

They had been advised that ensuring that the applicant abided by the conditions would be the responsibility of the NHDC Enforcement Officers. With their extensive workload it was certain that Enforcement Officers would not be able to monitor the dog training facility.

 

To add to this there was inadequate parking for this number of cars at East Lodge. Agricultural vehicles had already been obstructed by vehicles travelling to and from the property as there were no opportunities for vehicles to pass whist travelling along this single track.

 

The had been a number of inaccuracies during the application process. Firstly, Lilley Parish Council was consulted by the Planning Officer but the site was not in Lilley, but in Offley; the original application stated that there were no trees on this site but there are; the original application stated that this application was to train the owners dogs, but this was incorrect as it was a commercial venture to train client’s dogs.

 

Members would have received copies of correspondence sent by the applicants to their neighbours sent a year ago. stating that they were helping out friends from their local dog training class in Welwyn a couple of times a week over summer.

 

A year on and the activity had increased to a daily activity, with far more visitors attending.

 

It was difficult to believe that any conditions attached to the application would be adhered to.

 

The Planning Officer consulted Hertfordshire Highways, but Byway 20 was not the responsibility if Hertfordshire Highways and therefore they would have no comment. Although it was acknowledged that this had now been corrected.

 

After consulting the Herts Byways Officer, the Planning Officer was advised that, if she were minded to grant the application, he would ask that conditions were added, whereby the owners of East Lodge would have to make a financial contribution to the upkeep of Byway 20. This was not included in the original papers sent to Members so how could an informed decision be made without all of the information.

 

East Lodge and its grounds was located in the Green Belt and a Conservation Area. Introducing a dog training facility, with all of its equipment and associated traffic, was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

 

Byway 20 was downgraded to preserve the track as well as making it a safe route for the many walkers, cyclists and horse riders that enjoy the area each week.

 

Introducing up to 200 traffic movements per week on the track would put it back to the position prior to the years of campaigning to make this a safe and enjoyable country track.

 

There were also young infants that lived along the track and the anti-social, excessive speeds  that the SUVs and vans travelled to and from East Lodge proposed a real danger to the individuals residing along Byway 20.

 

The deep pot holes created by the massive increase in vehicle movements had created the need for cars to drive halfway up verges, causing further damage.

 

In Autumn, Winter and Spring months the regular rainfall made the track a slurry of flowing mud, which caked all of the cars and properties along Byway 20.

 

She was aware of several insurance claims made against the County Council for damage to motor vehicles caused by the state of the track, including claims from the applicant.

 

Signs had been erected by the County Council at the entrance of Byway 20 to say it was unsuitable for vehicles, therefore why would you ever grant permission for 200 car movements per week to travel along a track deemed unsuitable for vehicles.

 

Councillor Frost urged Members to find this application unsound.

 

Members noted Paragraph 4.3.10 which stated there were no nearby residential properties and queried where Councillor Frost lived in relation to the application site. They asked whether she was aware of the two additional conditions mentioned at the beginning of the item.

 

Councillor Frost advised that there were three properties at the end of the track and this was where she and Councillor Barnard lived. She was made aware of the additional conditions by Hertfordshire County Council Officers not by NHDC Planning Officers.

 

Members asked whether tarmacking the track would lead to an increase in speed of the traffic using it and queried where on the track the gate was positioned.

 

Councillor Frost advised that this was a country track and tarmacking it would definitely increase the speed of traffic. It had been downgraded to prevent over use by traffic and the additional traffic associated with this application would be an accident waiting to happen. She explained the gate was just beyond East Lodge.

 

Councillor Barnard advised that this was a country track for the enjoyment of hikers and horse riders, although for at least 6 months of the year it could not be used as it turned to slurry in rainfall.

 

Members asked where the stated number of journeys had been sourced.

 

Councillor Frost advised she had based her figures on 4 cars per hour for 8 hours each day and that some of these journeys were at anti-social times.

 

Councillor Barnard informed Members that he had received an email 12 months previously from the applicant to say that three cars plus a van would be going up the track and that these were dog training friends who would be in a couple of times a week through summer but this had escalated and escalated.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Frost and Councillor Barnard for their presentation.

 

Councillor Frost asked for clarification that she needed to leave the room for the debate.

 

The Planning Lawyer confirmed that she should leave the room for the debate.

 

Councillors Frost and Barnard left the room.

 

Councillor Harry Spencer-Smith declared a declarable interest in that the applicant was known to him, but this was not a pecuniary interest.

 

Mr Kamal and Mrs Tracey Bengougam, Applicant, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 17/04255/FP.

 

Mr Bengougam informed Members that they had lived at East Lodge for 14 Years and made the following points:

 

·                The road had always been pot-holed and had only been repaired once in 14 years.

·                He had been in contact with the Byways Officer approximately 1 year ago regarding the state of the road before any of this happened.

·                He had volunteered to pay 50 percent of the costs of repairs to the road.

·                He was an international business man, at home 50 percent of the time and owned just two cars.

·                It was always their dream to own a house in the country and felt blessed to have found East Lodge.

·                His work took him all over the world and they had to make a decision about safety.

·                There had been issues with criminal behaviour including fly tipping and cars coming down the track at night.

·                His wife was passionate about dogs and wished to use the field to train a few dogs.

·                Their dogs were like their children and were also added security.

·                This was not a business as presented by Councillors Frost and Barnard.

·                This was someone with a passion to serve the community and provide a service that didn’t exist before.

·                He had made the gates secure on the field so that it could be used

·                Cars would be using the track no more than 20 times a week.

·                He was an analyst and studied the risk of who this might affect.

·                They were law abiding and did not want to cause a problem so they had contacted neighbours to tell them what was planned.

·                Tractors used the track to access agricultural land and compared to this, their use would be minimal.

·                No-one drives at speed with dogs in the car. People drove slowly with animals in their car.

·                This would not start before 10am and would not continue after dusk, as there was no light in the field.

 

Mr Bengougam concluded by stating that this was about two people with power, who were their neighbours and were annoyed that they had decided to allow someone, at no financial gain to themselves, to use a field for 4 days a week over a few months to socialise and create a community.

 

He was astounded that he had to have this conversation, considering all of the applications preceding this one, when he was trying to allow a few dogs to run around a field and make a positive contribution to the community.

 

In the beginning they were not sure whether the person running the training sessions would continue, but when they realised that this would continue, they spoke to Councillor Barnard who suggested that they put in a planning application and they just followed the rules.

 

Members asked for clarification regarding what upgrading the surface of the track meant and queried whether the number of vehicles could increase from the 20 quoted.

 

Mr Bengougam advised that that they currently maintained the verges etc and were happy to contribute to upgrading the track. He had researched the methods and identified an ecological surface that could be used but it definitely would not be tarmacked.

 

The moral question was how much they should pay as they were not the only users of the road, others including farm vehicles used the track and therefore they should not have to bear 100 percent of the cost of upgrading.

 

Mrs Bengougam advised that, in respect of the number of vehicles. they were only planning to train one dog per hour on Mondays and Tuesdays and the trainer rarely had more than three or four in a day, it would be no where near the figure quoted by Councillor Frost and would not want it to be that many. They had CCTV at the front of their property and could clarify conclusively the number of vehicles that attended their property.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr and Mrs Bengougam for their presentation.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that when the report was written they considered the option of a legal agreement regarding the contribution towards the upgrade of the BOAT, and the original view was that this seemed unreasonable given the scale of use, however, the route was in a poor state of repair and the majority of traffic using this route would be going to their property.

 

He had discussed this issue at length with the Rights of Way Officer and having considered various options, it was felt that, as the BOAT would be used for rural business use, the applicant should make a contribution, with the details being agreed between the applicant and Herts County Council.

 

In respect of enforceability of conditions, Officers would not be on site monitoring, but would certainly be informed if any condition was breached.

 

Had there not been a planning application this business would probably have just carried on and the number of vehicle movements quoted had never been witnessed, therefore it was not reasonable to refuse permission.

 

Its was proposed and seconded and following a vote:

 

RESOLVED: That application 17/04255/FP.be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and subject to the following additional conditions:

 

1.         Within 6 months of the date of this planning permission, the applicant shall have entered into a legal agreement with Hertfordshire County Council to secure the implementation of a surface improvement scheme for BOAT Offley 20 which accesses the application site.

 

Reason: To ensure a maintenance programme for upgrading the condition of the BOAT from additional traffic caused by this development, in the interests of highway safety and amenity.

 

2.         The use of land hereby permitted shall cease within 2 years of the date of this decision notice unless the works secured through Condition 1 above have been implemented in full.

 

Reason: If the maintenance programme required under Condition 1 cannot be secured within a reasonable timeframe this use of land must cease, in the interests of highway safety and amenity.

 

A Member expressed concern that the objectors left the room before the public participation regarding this item was concluded.

 

The Planning Lawyer confirmed the wording of the Member Code of conduct regarding this matter.

 

The Chairman agreed to consult with the Monitoring Officer regarding this matter.

 

Councillors Barnard and Frost returned to the room.