Agenda item

Continuation of use of former agricultural field for equestrian purposes and the retention of a field shelter.

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding the continuation of use of former agricultural field for equestrian purposes and the retention of a field shelter at land to the west of Highsteads, Medomsley (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. She further advised that the application had been brought to committee at the request of Councillor Stelling, local Member on the grounds that residents had concerns in relation to access and egress, change of use from countryside, the location of the building and the visual impact that it would have on the surrounding area.

In referring to paragraph 46 of the report the Principal Planning Officer advised that the distance quoted in the report were inaccurate and should read as follows:-

The field shelter is approximately 24m from the boundary of the properties in Highsteads and 40m away from the nearest house.

Councillor Jewell commented that he considered the application to be fully justified and appropriate for its setting, however noted that some of the objections which had been made were not fully justified. He added that any concerns raised had been mitigated against and with such MOVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions as listed within the report.

Councillor Shield added that as one of the local members he totally disagreed with the comments made. He commented that the location of the shelter would have been better placed on the bottom elevation of the site which was less prominent. He further added that the tree belt which separated the site from the Highsteads development was made up of deciduous trees and as such during winter months did not provide the level of screening suggested.

With regard to the cumulative impact of equestrian development in the vicinity he added that he was extremely disappointed to learn that the application at Broom Hill, Ebchester within a short distance had been allowed at appeal.

Councillor Shield went on to note that adjacent residential properties would be subjected to vermin and odour as result of the shelter and equestrian facilities and there was also no guarantee that people would use the access as intended, which could cause further issues on the 60mph road. He therefore concluded that as a local member with knowledge of the area that he could not support the application and with such MOVED that the application be refused on the grounds that the development was contrary to policy EN1 of the saved local plan in that the development would not benefit the rural community nor enhance or maintain the rural landscape.

Councillor Cordon added that he could see no reason to refuse the application and therefore SECONDED that the proposal made by Councillor Jewell.

As a point of clarification, Councillor Temple asked whether the committee had any powers to reject the application in favour of a more logical siting at the bottom of the site. The Principal Planning Officer advised that although the alternative location would be deemed acceptable, the application had to be considered on its own merits and although the propose site was slightly elevated, it was considered to be well screened from the highway and therefore could not justify refusal in that basis.

In response Councillor Temple commented that he fully appreciated the concerns of the local members and acknowledged his concerns however appreciated that should the committee refuse the application that the Planning Inspectorate would take a similar view to that of the recent decision on Broomhill South Farm. With that he added that it was with regret that he supported the application.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions as listed within the report.