Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The case officer presented the application as set out in the report, with a recommendation to permit, subject to conditions.

The Chair expressed disappointment that the Member who called the application in was not present to explain the reasons for the call-in.

Public Speaker

Landscape architect, in support

The speaker said he has 35 years’ professional experience and is familiar with the area, the local green space and the value attached to it, considering the open rural character and visual amenity to be enhanced by the present equestrian land use.  He made the following points:

-       replacing the existing stable block, which is in a poor state of repair and detracts from local visual amenity, provides an opportunity to enhance the landscape, the proposed building having a smaller footprint and lower ridge and eaves height, and better aligning with the existing settlement pattern on Kidnappers’ Lane. It will maintain recognisable equestrian characteristics, will not introduce any new features or activities likely to cause harm to the landscape character or character of the wider local green space, and the smaller footprint provides an uplift in biodiversity net gain; 

-       in visual terms, the new stable block is orientated to avoid disruption of views towards Leckhampton Hill and the escarpment, particularly from Kidnappers’ Lane. It aligns with the existing backdrop of established vegetation at the field boundary adjacent to residential properties, which already partly screens views towards the hill, and from Kidnappers’ Lane the vegetation forms a backdrop against which the narrow side profile of the stable will be seen; 

-       the location and orientation of the proposed stable will not interfere with general views from the Public Rights of Way (PROW) in the field, with users retaining clear views along the route in both directions.

He hoped that Members would support the recommendation to permit the scheme.

Questions

In response to Members’ questions, the officer confirmed that:

-       no discussion took place with the applicant about redeveloping the existing stable block structures; officers only considered the scheme as proposed;

-       regarding the PROW, the team at Gloucestershire County Council was consulted and provided a generic response.  This was forwarded in full to the applicant’s agent, who advised that the PROW would not be impacted, and there was no need to divert or extinguish them.  He was aware, however,  that if a PROW was impacted even on a temporary basis, advice from the county must be sought;

-       the NPPF states that any development in local green space needs to be considered in line with greenbelt policy, except for grey belt (previously developed) land.  This site is not considered as grey belt and the application was therefore assessed as greenbelt development;

-       any suggestion or supposition that the proposed development would block the viewpoint allowing further development to be inserted behind the stable block was speculation and could not be taken into account;

-       the proposed hardstanding will be permeable;

-       the area currently occupied by the old stable block and hardstanding will be returned to green land when the stable is demolished – this is conditioned to happen within one calendar month. 

Debate

There was no further debate.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support - unanimous

PERMIT