Agenda item

The application was for the erection of an indoor riding school.

This application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation, however, it had been called in for determination by the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Victoria Wheeler on the basis that the proposal was inappropriate development within the Green Belt. 

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

“The applicant has responded to the Committee Report, raising concerns about the content and misrepresentations set out in the  report (and recommendation) and making the following comments (with the Council’s response in italics):

·         The site should be described as under development as a private equestrian centre rather than a currently vacant equestrian centre [The site includes some demolition of stabling at the site with some stables remaining on site.  There is no stabling on the site currently being used for this purpose and the approved stable accommodation, apart for the demolition works already undertaken, has not started.  The Council considers that the description in the officer report is more accurate];

·         The development is not inappropriate development on the basis that the NPPF indicates that such development as the current proposal is appropriate (i.e. not inappropriate), thereby not requiring “very special circumstances” to justify the proposal, as it falls within an exception in Paragraph 145 and that case law backs up this approach [Paragraph 145(b) of the NPPF indicates that buildings which provide appropriate outdoor recreation/sport facilities are not inappropriate in the Green Belt so long as they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.  In this case, noting the size of the building, it is considered that the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and is therefore inappropriate development.  More recent case law, than indicated by the applicant, would reflect this approach];

·         The Council’s Equine Adviser (for the refused scheme) indicated that the proposal was appropriate development in terms of Policy DM3 and the NPPF [The Council’s Equine Adviser is a consultee to the application and their comments were addressed by the Inspector in the appeal decision (Annex 2).  The Inspector considered that the consultee comments did not provide a substantiated assessment of the effect on the Green Belt];

·         The officer report does not explain the Inspector’s comments with relation to the appeal development and the amendments to that scheme to overcome their comments [It was confirmed in the officer report that the current proposal, different to the appeal proposal, did not lead to countryside encroachment because it would be positioned adjacent to the stables (not currently built but approved under SU/17/0524).  The proposal being of a very similar size to the appeal proposal would also impact on Green Belt openness];

·         The height of the proposal would be 4.5 metres and not 4.8 metres as indicated in the officer report [This is noted]; and

·         No reference has been made to the applicant’s comments in response to the received neighbour objections [These comments from the applicant are attached as an Annex to this Update]”.

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Martin Collins, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Ian Ellis, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

The officer recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Victoria Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Vivienne Chapman and put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that application 19/0570 be refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that all members of the Committee had received various pieces of correspondence in respect of the application.

Note 2

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 refuse the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Vivienne Chapman, Sarah Jane Croke, Colin Dougan, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, Sam Kay, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Morgan Rise, Victoria Wheeler, Helen Whitcroft and Valerie White.

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillor Graham Tapper.