Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use of land to equestrian and erection of stables and covered menage.

RESOLVED: That application 24/01042/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 2 hours 15 minutes 21 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 24/01024/FP and advised that:

·             An email had been received from a local resident to recommend that if the Committee granted permission, a condition should be applied to ensure the method of working complied with BS5837:2012, Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction.

·             If permission was granted and that condition was not secured, there should be a condition that stated compensation would be paid if trees died within 20 years of the development.

·             Compensation should be based on Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees.

The Development and Conservation Manager then presented the report in respect of Application 24/01042/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

In response to questions from Councillor Dave Winstanley, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·             An Appeal had been lodged against the buildings adjacent to the application site.

·             There would be no reason to determine the decision on this application pending the decision of the Appeal.

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Mr Tim Wise to speak against the application. Mr Wise thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

·             He was speaking on behalf of the Three Houses Lane Action Group.

·             He urged the Committee to support the officer recommendation to refuse permission for the proposal.

·             Built form would be within the 20-metre root protection zone of the Church Wood Ancient Woodland which was protected by a Tree Protection Order.

·             This also conflicted with the mandatory BS5837:2012, Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction document.

·             A Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan, Arboricultural Method Statement and Construction Management Plan should have been provided by the Applicant to comply with BS5837.

·             Nearby trees were threatened from the stables as horse urine and faeces could cause their death.

·             Trees on and off-site were at risk from an individual and cumulative impact of excavation, compaction, pollution, contamination, flooding, service provision, and damage to bark, trunks and canopies.

·             If the Council were to grant permission, the building footprint should be moved away from the woodland.

·             At over 1900 square metres, the proposed buildings were vastly larger than the 800 square metre barn already on-site and there was no proposed mitigation or buffer zone for the loss of residential amenity that this would cause. 

·             In their opinion, the building did not relate to outdoor activities as permitted in paragraph 154 of the NPPF.

·             The application site could not be classified as Grey Belt as the Applicant had not demonstrated an unmet need which the facilities would address. 

·             Special circumstances had not been advanced by the Applicant to explain why this development should be approved.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Mr Wise for hisr verbal presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Mr Simon Warner to speak in support of the application. Mr Warner thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

·             The Appeal had been withdrawn and the ceased activity had been relocated to another site.

·             This application had sought to provide a modest equestrian facility in keeping with the rural character of the area.

·             Council Officer concerns had been listened to carefully, and they had responded by submitting amended plans which generously reduced the stables by 23% and menage by 25%.

·             The Applicant was open to considering further reductions and they had requested a follow up meeting to discuss additional amendments to make the scheme acceptable.

·             The Applicant had engaged drainage consultants to prepare a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.

·             The Applicant was a breeder of high-quality horses which met a recognised need for horses in the UK and internationally.

·             Several neighbouring sites were used for equestrian activities and an agreement had been reached with adjoining paddocks to provide more land outside this site.

·             A pre-application on the wider site had been submitted to reach a long-term amicable agreement on its use.

·             The points already raised showed that the Applicant was committed to work with the Council to produce a policy compliant and proportionate outcome that balanced Green Belt protection with rural economic activity.

·             Over half of UK riding centres reported that they did not have enough horses to meet demand which had surged since the increase in recreational horse ownership and equestrian activities after the COVID-19 pandemic.

·             He advised the Committee to defer the application to allow time to overcome the remaining issues and deliver the benefits to the equestrian community.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

In response to points raised in the verbal presentations, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·             The Applicant had indicated a willingness to alter the scheme, however, the Senior Planning Officer had indicated that the proposed amendments were not sufficient to address the initial concerns raised.

·             The Applicant was open to submit further amendments, however, it would be up to Members to defer the application to receive these.  

In response to an additional question from Councillor Martin Prescott, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the proposed revisions had been received after this application had been scheduled for consideration at this meeting.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse permission and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

There were no points made as part of the Debate.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 24/01042/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.