Agenda item

Part change of use of agricultural land and building for employment use (B2 and Office), for the keeping and breeding of horses, siting of cabins for office and storage use, formation of horse exercise areas and runs, enclosures and electricity line pole and engineering works to the landscape for drainage purposes (retrospective).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding a part change of use of agricultural land and building for employment use (B2 and Office), for the keeping and breeding of horses, siting of cabins for office and storage use, formation of horse exercise areas and runs, enclosures and electricity line pole and engineering works to the landscape for drainage purposes (retrospective) at East Durham Cathedral Farm, Sherburn, Durham DH6 1EY (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Ms T Barber, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. She advised the Committee that Mr Johnson, applicant, had bought the site in 2009 and gained planning permission for the erection of an agricultural building. In 2012 he had purchased the adjacent area of land where trees and shrubbery had already been removed prior to the applicant acquiring the area. Ms Barber advised that the applicant had not cut down any of the trees, he had simply cleared the area when he took it over. Since that time the applicant had developed the site to include engineering works and stables.

Members were advised that in 2012 the Planning Authority had notified the applicant that consent was required for the changes of use and additional features on the site such as the horse exercise enclosure. Ms Barber advised that the applicant had been unaware that additional planning permission would be required, however upon being notified that consent was required, he had actively worked with the Planning Authority in preparing a suitable retrospective application.

Ms Barber highlighted that the NPPF gave strong support for sustainable development in the countryside and that the applicant was content with the restrictions placed on the permission restricting the size of the development. Furthermore Members were advised that the applicant was more than willing to undertake a scheme of replanting as set out in condition 4 of the application.

Several Councillors expressed concerns about the application, particularly in respect of it being a retrospective application. It was noted that the applicant had gained permission in 2010 for the entrance gates, but had then not realised that consent would be required for the change of use. Although of the opinion that the business case was robust, Councillors Moir and Davinson advised that on the basis the application was made in retrospect, they were unable to support officer recommendations.

Councillor Bell advised that having observed the premises on the site visit earlier that day, he had safety concerns in relation to the engineering works being conducted in close proximity to the stable area. He suggested this could be a possible fire hazard.

Councillor Conway shared concerns regarding the retrospective nature of the application and while he shared the local concerns in relation to the engineering aspect of the business, he was keen to support business diversification in respect of the equestrian aspects of the business, but not the engineering.

Several Councillors voiced their support for the application, stating that the Planning Committee should not oppose good business plans and that other than it being retrospective, they could see nothing contentious about the application.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• Retrospective application – Although it was acknowledged that on principle retrospective applications were not preferable, a balanced view should be taken. The application was size restrictive and changes of use on similar sites were not uncommon. Indeed the changes of use detailed in the application were consistent with other applications across the county.
• Safety concerns – Officers opinion was that due diligence had been applied and there were screens separating the various areas within the building.
• The Committee were advised that planning officers had persistently deferred the application until completely satisfied with the content.

Councillor Conway reiterated his concerns regarding the engineering aspects of the application. He did not feel the engineering works were ancillary to the agricultural work on the site.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the engineering works was a stand alone business and was contained within the existing building, not to be viewed as ancillary. He reiterated that it was common for such changes of use to agricultural buildings. Members were advised that while the majority of work was conducted off site, it was not for the Planning Authority to determine how a business should operate and he reiterated that the application was size restrictive however.

Seconded by Councillor Kay, Councillor Lethbridge moved approval of the application and upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved: That theapplication be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report.