Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, which has been revised during determination as the  original submission was felt to be over-elaborate. The siting of the proposal has also shifted further east within the site.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Savage, due to the level of objection from neighbours and the Parish Council.  

Public Speaking:

Mr Humphris, neighbour, in objection

Residents in the area of Ham Square are deeply concerned that this peaceful sloping field, used by deer, foxes and badgers, could soon have a large stable block at the end, resulting in traffic passing their gardens at all hours.  There are two major problems:  the size of the stables, and the track.  The stables are massive – 28 x 9.4m, and 4.4m high to the ridge – the size of a large bungalow.  Understands that this application will not go away, so suggests as a compromise that the stable recently built in Mill Lane be used as a model, only 2.9m high to the ridge and blending nicely with the surrounding area.  The proposal has a roof of dark slate, which would be obvious to walkers on the nearby footpath.  A lower roof would also forestall any future attempt to convert the stables into living accommodation.  Regarding the track, it is very close to the houses, and would be better moved away to approach to left side of the stables rather than the right, which will be tight for larger vehicles.  Ancillary problems  include the bright security lights which will light half the field, which is in the AONB, replacing them with intense bulkhead lights, and the stable dung and straw which would have to be removed and not burned on site.  The present application allows for the track and stable to be changed, but not for the horses to be allowed anywhere as a separate permission would be needed to change the use from agricultural grazing to equine use.  Has known the field for 65 years and only ever seen cattle using it; recreational equine use would be too intrusive on nearby residents. 

Mr Oliver Rider, agent, in support

The application highlights all the facts, and addresses residents’ and Parish Council comments.  The site is in the AONB but policy doesn’t restrict all developments within it.  Agricultural development is OK, supported in policy as being in keeping, as recognised in the officer report.  To say permitting this scheme will set a precedent is unfounded – it is a stable block in the countryside, and has been altered from its original form as a compromise to officers’ concerns.  It will be constructed of timber, as is typical for stable blocks, and dark brown in colour, consistent with the AONB and sympathetic with the rural surrounding. Local people are resistant to change but the Government recommendation is that planning permission should be granted where there is no reason not to.  The proposal is for a simple stable block, for the use of the applicant’s four horses –nothing else.  There is no intention to use it for housing, and conditions can be included to control this.  Space has been included for hay storage and tack room, in keeping with the primary use and not causing extra traffic.  Under the NPPF and Local Plan, this proposal is acceptable, and the applicants cannot compromise any further.  The stable needs to be big enough to accommodate four horses for the private use of the applicant.

Member debate:

MS:  agrees that this does seem overly large for the AONB, and is not convinced that four horses need that sort of space.  The Parish Council is right to object to the scheme; will not vote for it.  Does not consider it compliant with the NPPF, which places great weight on protecting against changes in the AONB.  This proposal is too big for the purpose for which it is intended. 

LS:  admittedly the revised plans are better than the original plans, but this area is not technically AONB, it really is AONB, and there is no compelling reason to grant this permission.  The borough has a housing crisis for people, not for horses.  The primary concern is about access, as with four horses in the stable, there will be a lot of movement of horse boxes up and down what is effectively a track, making it more of a road similar to the one accessing Ham Square.  It will have a negative impact on the view, and is inappropriate in the area.

PT: would suggest that there won’t be horse boxes up and down the track daily or even weekly.  Can officers explain whether or not the use of the field needs to be defined as equine or agricultural?  There is no change of use in the application, yet it will be changed from cattle grazing to horse grazing.

SW:  can officers respond to concern about living accommodation being added to the stable block, and confirm that the burning of straw wouldn’t be allowed?  Also, notes there is no comment from the Cotswold Conservation Board – why not?  If they have responded, what did they say?

BF:  the size of the boxes complies with the minimum standards for horses, and the tack room and store are in keeping with the proposed use.  Has owned horses in the past, and there is nothing proposed here that would not be found in an average stable block.  The red line area just includes the track and the stable block; the rest of the site is agricultural.  There is new planning guidance about the conversion of agricultural buildings to accommodation, but the stable is not an agricultural building.  The field itself is agricultural land, enough to support grazing for four horses.  Could equally have cattle or pigs there – it is on the edge of farm land, and a location where we would expect to see horses. Can see nothing wrong with this proposal – a decent wooden stable, store, tack room, and somewhere to make a cup of tea.

DS:  the stable block as envisaged would put the tatty buildings in the shade, but has a problem with the access road.  If this is half-prepared already, and synthetic grass can be used to bolster it up, this would be acceptable; tarmac, however, would not be suitable here.   Is concerned about the impact this will have on the houses and the main buildings, and cannot support the proposal for that reason.

MJC, in response:

-       the Cotswold Conservation Board was consulted but did not respond, despite having had time to do so;

-       regarding the use of the land, officers have been careful to limit the red line site; a stable block comes under equestrian use, grazing land under agricultural use, and the constrained red line indicates only equestrian use for that part of the site;

-       to DS, Members have to make a judgement as to whether what is being proposed is acceptable or not.

PT:  if the land is used for grazing horses it may count as an agricultural use, but what it the owner puts up fences to exercise the horses etc?  Will this be breaking the rules?

CN:  was startled by MJC’s comment that the Cotswold Conservation Board did not respond to consultation request.  We must have a response from statutory consultees – can they be chased up by phone if they do not respond to paper/electronic copies of plans?

MJC, in response:

-       the Cotswold Conservation Board is not a statutory consultee, but its input is significant in this area and the system is set up for it to comment on applications of this nature.  Unfortunately, there is no resource to chase up if no response is received.  Maybe councillors could pursue this with CCB themselves?

-       has limited knowledge of rural planning, but believes that 28 days of equestrian activity on agricultural land in one year would be classed as permitted development; if straying beyond this, a change of use planning application would be needed;

SW:  as the borough-appointed member of the Cotswold Conservation Board, will chase up this matter to see why it is not responding the consultee requests.

BF:  it didn’t respond regarding Harp Hill at the top of the GCHQ site either, implying that it has no objection.  With reference to DS’s comment, green plastic grass is used at the racecourse and holds the root system together.

AC:  has nothing against this proposal in principle; it just seems remarkably big for four horses.  There is a similar development nearby, not as big or as high.  Did officers raise this with the applicant?

AL:  agrees that this seems a very large development for personal use, particularly as there are already two stables at the applicant’s house.  A lot of preparation work has already been done, and given the scale, this does not seem like a simple private building. Facilities such as these do not have to be adjacent to the applicant’s home, and there seems no compelling reason to affect the AONB simply for the applicant’s enjoyment. 

MJC, in response:

-       to AC, officers did negotiate with the applicant re size and style.  The original submission was rather elaborate, and was toned down along the way, although the footprint remained the same – the applicant was not willing to change that;

-       regarding the impact on the AONB, a stable block is typical of the type of building we would expect to see in the countryside;

-       it is a question of judgement – what is the impact of this building on the AONB; what is the level of harm?  Most people would not bat an eyelid if they saw it in situ;

-       officers consider the impact on the AONB is very limited, making it difficult to come up with a refusal reason which could be sustained at appeal.

PB:  no Member has come up with a reason to refuse yet.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

7 in support

5 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT