Agenda item

DM/17/00202/FPA - Land to the rear of Pleasant View, Medomsley, Consett

Proposed change of use from allotments to equestrian use and erection of stable for horses for personal use and hay storage

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the proposed change of use from allotments to equestrian use and erection of stable for horses for personal use and hay storage (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and plans of the proposed layouts. Members had also visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the setting and surroundings.

 

Councillor Stelling, local Member, addressed the committee in order to object to the application.

 

He first declared an interest in the application, on the basis that his sister lived on the Terrace which was affected by proposals. He had sought legal advice from the Council’s Solicitor and noted that he would leave the chamber once he had made his representations.

 

Councillor Stelling advised that to date the site had been used for the storage of a static caravan, playground equipment and a trampoline. In addition the applicant had hard core delivered to the site, a sheet metal fence had been erected and brick gateposts were built, which subsequently were lowered after advice given from DCC. All activity on site to date had been unrelated to keeping horses.

 

The fence which had been erected around the site was not in keeping with the area and did not blend into the landscape which detracted from the open countryside.

 

He further noted that he was extremely disappointed to learn that the Coal Authority had withdrawn their objections given the mining history in the area. In conclusion he advised that he could not support the application and as such asked members to refuse the application.  (He then left the chamber.)

 

Mrs P Stokoe, local resident addressed the committee to object to the application. She advised that she spoke on behalf of the many residents who had objected to the application.

 

She advised that for approximately 14 months, residents had suffered disruption, mess and intrusion as a result of the applicant using the land without regard to policies, planning or local residents.

 

Further concerns were raised regarding access to the site via the single lane, noting that there was already damage caused to the road from 4x4 and other heavy vehicles which had been seen entering the site. It was felt that further damage to this road would occur during construction of the stables and would increase the risk of parked cars being damaged.

 

Mrs Stokoe advised that 17 households in the immediate vicinity had objected, with 24 individual objections being submitted. This demonstrated the strength of feeling regarding the proposed development. She further advised that residents had not been notified that the Coal Authority had withdrawn their objection and were disappointed to learn that they did not consider subsidence to be an issue.

In conclusion she noted further concerns relating to security, light pollution and odour created from animal waste.

 

Mr G Rimmington, applicant, addressed the committee to speak in support of the application. He advised that historically the site had been used to keep pigeons and was in a rotten state when he had acquired the site.

 

Regarding its future use, Mr Rimmington advised that he would be the only regular visitor using a vehicle to access the site limiting disturbance to any residents. He further advised that he would be willing to assist residents in maintaining the road. The site was for the sole use of his family and children.

 

In addition regarding concerns raised relating to odour, he advised that he would be personally removing the animal waste on a fortnightly basis. He further made reference to the farm land surrounding the site which was regularly sprayed with manure. 

 

He further pointed out that the site could not been seen from the main street and garages in the vicinity were not well kept, being in some places quite overgrown. He therefore could not see any reasons for refusal given that officers were also happy with the scheme.

 

Councillor Robinson asked for clarification regarding legislation on future use of previous allotment land and furthermore whether the residents had been permitted to view the report forwarded by the Coal Authority. In response the Solicitor advised that allotments only had to be replaced by allotments where they had been previously owned by a public authority.

 

The Planning Officer further advised that the latest correspondence from the Coal Authority had been received the previous day. The reasons for the withdrawal had been as a result of changes to the proposed structure and less significant groundworks being required.

 

Councillor Wilson in referencing paragraph 66 of the report raised a query regarding access for bridleways and the recommended 1 acre per horse as recommended by the British Horse Association. The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had come to a gentleman’s agreement with a landowner for the grazing and exercise of his horses witihin 400m of the site. Councillor Wilson queried what would happen should the landowner retract his offer of use of the land. The Planning Officer advised that it would be up to the applicant to find a suitable alternative. The Solicitor further clarified that this would be an animal welfare issue and would not in itself be a reason for refusal.

 

Councillor Shield who was a local member, advised that as a previous resident of Pleasant View he was greatly troubled by the report. He added that in order for the applicant to graze his horses he would need to cross a busy interchange. He furthermore queried the frequency of grazing and how he would transport the horses to that site.

 

The Highways Officer confirmed that Highways did not consider the transportation of horses to result in traffic movements that dissimilar to those seen during previous use.

 

Councillor Shield further commented that he considered the application to be in breach of policy EN1 of the Saved District Local Plan and paragraph 14 of the NPPF did apply. He therefore concluded that given the strong feeling of residents and the lack of trust in the applicant, he requested that the application be deferred.

 

Further discussion took place regarding the storage on site and Councillor Milburn asked whether a condition could be attached to specify that equestrian related only items were stored. In response the Solicitor advised that should the applicant want to use the site to store any other items that were not ancillary to the permitted use this would require a change in use application.

 

Councillor Cordon added that he was bemused to read some of the objections and added that he did not consider the application to contravene any part of NPPF planning policy and with such MOVED that the application be approved.

 

Councillor Jewell added that it was a difficult application because it was so emotive, however noted that the objections were non planning related issues and with such could not see a valid reason for the application to be refused. He therefore SECONDED the proposal.

 

Resolved: that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed within the report 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7. Condition 6 was no longer applicable due to the withdrawal of Coal Authority objections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: