Agenda item

The application was for the erection of replacement stables, along with the provision of a sand school and parking, following the demolition of existing stables. (Additional information recv'd 29/9/17 & 18/10/2017) (Amended Description/Additional Information Rec'd 02/11/2017) (Amended info rec'd 06/11/2017) (Amended/Additional Plan and Change of Description rec'd 01/12/2017) (Amended plan & description change 07/12/2017) (Additional information recv'd 05/04/2018). (Additional information recv'd 27/4/18). (Amended plans rec'd 07/06/2018) (Additional information recv'd 24/7/18) (Amended plans rec'd 30/07/2018).

 

This application would  have normally been determined under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, but was linked to application SU/17/0524 which had been called in by Councillor Pat Tedder and was considered at the same meeting.

 

Members were advised of the following updates and the referenced annexes published with the supplementary agenda papers:

 

“Consultations

 

•        The Council’s Drainage Engineer has raised no objections to the revised layout of the building and equestrian facilities which can be drained and the proposal can be agreed subject to conditional approval.  The applicant will need to implement a suitable scheme providing attenuation.

 

•          The Countryside Access Officer has raised no objections to the amended proposal (received 22/8/18, see attached annex 2 and recommended informative below).

 

•          The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has indicated that the large oak tree at the site entrance and on third party land was included within the tree report for this application and that no recommendations for works were required for facilitation of the development.  This tree is therefore not at risk.  Proposed Condition 8 also seeks the compliance with this tree report.  As such, a Tree Preservation Order would not be recommended for this tree at this time.

 

•          In relation to the amended scheme, the County Highway Authority has raised no objections

 

Further representations

Four further letters have been received raising these new objections (on the basis of the amended scheme):

 

•          Overshadowing of bridle path and extended length along it and being unsightly sited close to it. Impact of horse riding and show jumping on users of the bridlepath. Failure to re-consult the Countryside Access Officer (i.e. Rights of Way Officer) [Officer comment: Noting the existing boundary treatment, including trees and other vegetation, in between, no material impact on the bridle path is envisaged. The Countryside Access Officer raised no objections to the amended proposal, see above]

 

•          The muck heap has been deleted and clarification is sought [Officer comment: The applicant has confirmed that the proposal for a muck heap has been deleted with soiled bedding kept in the stables and then collected and taken away for the site to an authorised waste facility]

 

•          Foul sewage system should be clarified [see proposed Condition 7 of SU/17/0524]

 

 

•          Minimum provision of grazing land is not provided for animal welfare purposes [see Paragraph 7.3.9 of original report for SU/17/0540 which indicates that for competition horses, their feed is strictly regulated and grazing land alone is not relied upon]

 

•          No storage facilities for bedding and feed are shown [Officer comment: This accommodation is to be provided within the proposed stable building]

 

•          No indication of boundary manege boundary fencing has been provided.  Fencing should post and rail only [Officer comment: This is not proposed]

 

•          The benefit of the amendments to some residents has resulted in dis-benefits to others [Officer comment: The improvements to the relationship with the residential property to the south boundary are noted.  However, noting the distance to the nearest residential properties, and the level of vegetation to the north boundary, no residential harm is envisaged to the residential beyond for the revised proposals]

 

•          No lorry parking shown [Officer comments: It has been confirmed that one horse box space is to be provided.  Four car parking spaces are shown]

 

•          Commercial operation – any receiving, buying, selling, training or producing horses for third parties or professional riders would result in a commercial enterprise [Officer comment: This use of the land would remain as a private use i.e. the training of their own horses.  What happens off-site e.g. use by other riders and the buying and selling of these horses is not relevant]

 

•          A proven drainage solution has not been provided [Officer comments: See Drainage Engineer comments above]

 

•          Turn-out time for dressage horses should be much greater than indicated by the applicants [Officer comments: This would not be a reason to refuse this application]

 

 

•          Having foaling boxes could have eight horses at the site [Officer comment: See proposed condition 8 (as attached) of SU/17/0540 which limits the site to six horses]

 

•          Loss of view [Officer comment: This is not a material planning consideration]

 

•          Increase in size of outside school (against existing redundant sand school) [Officer comment: Please see Paragraph 7.3.13 of the original officer report for SU/17/0540.  It is also considered that the revised outdoor school is also acceptable as an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt]

 

In relation to the amended scheme, Chobham Parish Council has raised an objection on the following basis:

 

•          Impact on openness and a disproportionate increase over the size of the original buildings

•          Evidence of equestrian activity and achievements are questionable and other anomalies exist and the full facts are needed before the decision can be made

•          Weight should be given to the independent specialist flood risk and drainage assessment prepared on behalf of the neighbour

•          Impact of re-sited indoor school on the character of the bridleway

•          Development is contrary to Policy DM3 (of the Core Strategy) and is an over-development of the site

•          Highway safety impact on Station Road

•          Insufficient grazing land for horses

•          An update upon condition of trees is required, and the vulnerability of the Oak tree at the site entrance and whether this tree can be protected by a Tree Preservation Order from the Tree Officer

•          Access arrangements onto bridleway and Station Road are not suitable for heavy vehicles, and should be protected from inappropriate vehicular use on an ongoing basis.  Construction traffic should not be allowed to use or park on the brideway and must only use the private access to the property (i.e. through the associated and adjoining residential curtilage) 

•          Usage rights of the land should be established

•          Bat survey has been undertaken out of season

•          Concern raised that they were not re-notified of amended scheme

 

One letter has been received in support from Major (Retd.) R.G. Waygood who is the Eventing Performance Manager for Team GB  (see Paragraph 7.3.6 of original officer report for SU/17/0524):

 

•          Confirming knowing the applicants on a professional basis for over 30 years vouching for the applicants credentials as operating within the elite end of horse ownership and equine management, and their care and diligence of the horse sin their ownership and care

•          Confirms that he has ridden and competed a number of horses owned, bred and trained by Mrs Burrell and her daughter

•          Confirms that he has trained Mrs Burrell and her daughter on a number of occasions and considers that her daughter shows all the traits of a professional rider and is anticipated that she will make a career as a competition rider after her education is complete.

 

[Officer comment: This letter of accreditation from such an eminent individual in the field ought to be given material weight]

 

Conditions/ informatives

A list of updated conditions is provided as attached as an annex 1 to this update.

 

Proposed informative:

 

1.         The applicant is advised that the existing access from the application site is directly onto Public Bridleway 14 and to be aware of the content of the consultation letter response from the Senior Countryside Access Officer received on 22 August 2018.  Further details and guidance can be provided by the Countryside Access Team of Surrey County Council.  

 

For completeness, a copy of the Council’s Equine Adviser’s comments as summarised in the original report is appended at annex 4.”

 

The officer recommendation to grant the application was proposed by Councillor Nick Chambers, seconded by Councillor Mrs Vivienne Chapman and put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that application 17/0540 be granted subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

 

                     i.        Cllr Edward Hawkins declared that all members of the Committee had received various pieces of correspondence on the application.

                    ii.        Cllr Victoria Wheeler declared that a near neighbour to the application site had attended one of her surgeries prior to the first hearing of the application by the Planning Applications Committee on 5 April 2018.

                   iii.        Cllr Pat Tedder declared that she had received supplementary representations from interested parties on the application, but she had not replied or made comment on any of them.  

 

Note 2

As this application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Martin Collins and David Spragg spoke in objection to the application. Mr Gerry Binmore, the  agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

Note 3

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to grant the application:

 

Councillors Nick Chambers, Mrs Vivienne Chapman, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, Adrian Page, Robin Perry and Ian Sams.

 

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

 

Councillors Colin Dougan, Katia Malcaus-Cooper, David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Conrad Sturt, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

 

As the voting on the motion was equally split, the vote was carried by the Chairman’s casting vote.