Agenda item

Creation of an outdoor horse arena, with timber rail fencing and floodlighting, exclusively for personal use (retrospective).

The Principal Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the creation of an outdoor horse arena, with timber rail fencing and floodlighting, exclusively for personal use (retrospective) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that equestrian use was well established on the site and therefore the use of the land did not form part of the application.  She added that Condition 3 should refer to following discharge of Condition 2, rather than to follow completion of the development.

The Committee were asked to note that the application site was in the open countryside, within the green belt and within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV).  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the site was also within extensive parkland, associated with the ruined Beaurepaire Priory, a scheduled monument and non-designated heritage asset. 

She noted the site was also within the setting of the Registered Battlefield of Neville’s Cross and a public right of way, Footpath No.10, ran adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the arena.

Members were shown site photographs and were asked to note the elevated position, a 1.5-metre-high fence surrounding the area, and three, four-metre-high floodlights.  The Principal Planning Officer referred to photographs from 2010 to 2019 which demonstrated the build up of land for the arena, and the height and position this created in terms of the arena, fencing and floodlights.  She reiterated that the application was in effect in relation to the arena surfacing, fencing and floodlights, with equestrian use having been established.

The Principal Planning Officer noted no objections from the Highways Section, with Bearpark Parish Council having objected, their representations having been made following the publication of the Committee report.  She noted that issues raised by Bearpark Parish Council related to the elevated position, with floodlights dominating the surround area, light pollution, and that the application only benefited two people, while the impact of the floodlighting would impact hundreds of other residents.  She noted that the City of Durham Parish Council had also objected, in terms of the light pollution and impact of the application on their residents.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Historic England had not commented on the application, and the Design and Conservation Team had noted the impact of the flood lights.  She added that the Landscape Team had noted the application represented a degree of harm, and had requested the removal of the floodlights, and a darker surface for the arena.  It was explained that the applicant amended the scheme to move the floodlights to the north-west side of the arena, with Design and Conservation and Landscape Teams noting the amended scheme represented less harm and there was a requirement for conditions in respect of landscaping and use.  The Principal Planning Officer noted Environmental Health had noted no objections, subject to a condition limiting the hours of use of the floodlights, for the period November to March, with two hours use in between the hours of 1600 to 1900.  She added that the Contaminated Land section noted no objections, and Archaeology noted to keep a watching brief. 

It was noted that there had been five letters of objection, including from the City of Durham Trust, with issues raised including: that the site was an eyesore; floodlight being on a prominent ridge; the possibility of the arena being for more than just personal use; impact on the historic park land; light pollution; and impact on the greenbelt.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the application was considered to be in line with County Durham Plan (CDP) Policies 10, 13 and 20, and while there was some impact on the area, it was felt the application represented an opportunity to mitigate existing impact via conditions and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Councillor M Wilson, Local Member, to speak in respect of the application.

Councillor M Wilson thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that concerns had been raised by residents of Bearpark as well as residents from the Neville’s Cross Division, Bearpark Parish Council and the City of Durham Parish Council.  She explained that the arena was on the edge of a very popular footpath for walkers, and the arena blocked views and impacted the green belt with its prominent position on the top of a hill.  She noted the impact of light pollution was felt by residents from Bearpark, adding there was also the impact upon wildlife from the light pollution, noting deer in the area that were disturbed from the light and activity.  Councillor M Wilson explained there was also the impact of the application on Beaurepaire and the Neville’s Cross Battlefield.  She noted potential anti-social behaviour and that residents had raised concerns in terms of the personal use for two individuals when balanced against the hundreds of residents that utilise the public right of way.  She concluded by asking Members to carefully consider the proposals and to refuse the application.

The Chair thanked Councillor M Wilson and asked Dr Mohammed AlHilali, local resident in objection, to speak in relation to the application.

Dr M AlHilali explained that he had made his home in Durham over the last seven years and felt that green spaces needed to be protected.  He explained that the application site was to the rear of his property, with the floodlights shining into his bedroom window, He noted the impact of the floodlights, explaining he had been able to see the northern lights recently, however the floodlights had been turned off.  Dr M AlHilali added that there would be impact upon nature and wildlife as a result of the application, as well as for residents from the local communities.  He noted that the area should be for all to enjoy, not just a privileged few.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application, reiterating the impact upon the environment, community, nature including deer as mentioned, from noise and light pollution.

The Chair thanked Dr M AlHilali and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor L Brown noted her disappointment that there was no Officer from the Design and Conservation Team in attendance at Committee to speak on the application, and also that the applicant was not in attendance.  She explained that the amendment in terms of the floodlights being moved to reduce impact was welcomed and asked if would be possible to condition the surface material to a darker colour, especially as it would take a period of time before landscaping measures would help hide the arena.

Councillor J Elmer noted he had attended the site visit and the site was very prominent, its elevated position making it a very visible location.  He noted that it could be seen from the road leading from Bearpark and the floodlights would have an impact.  He added that even with the proposal to move the floodlights, there would still be issues in terms of diffuse light above the hill that were of concern.  Councillor J Elmer noted his frustration in terms of the application being within the green belt, an AHLV, adjacent to the Neville’s Cross Battlefield, and that if the application had been through the normal process, rather than part-retrospective, he felt it would be unlikely to have been recommended for approval.  He explained that he felt the biggest impact had been the reprofiling of the landscape to create the raised arena area, which would have required earthworks, and therefore any archaeology or ecological impact to have been considered.  However, he understood those works had been carried out over five years ago and therefore were no part of the planning permission being sought.

Councillor J Elmer explained as regards his thoughts on the applicants’ approach in terms of those works and the application only being submitted part-retrospectively after being noticed.  He added that even if the floodlights were moved and were of a more suitable colour, painted, there would still be an impact on the landscape from the light, and therefore may not comply with CDP Policy 39, and this was of concern.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Officers had approached the applicant in terms of the surface colour being amended to be darker, the applicant had declined the request.  In terms of the part-retrospective nature of the application, the Principal Planning Officer noted that the equestrian use, would have likely been acceptable, that use being one of those looked at favourably in terms of development within the green belt.  She noted that, however, the application in terms of surface material was that as presented, and Officer felt it was the best opportunity to mitigate the impact via landscaping and tree planting.

Councillor J Elmer noted that the landscaping plan would need to be robust, and he hoped for native trees, and not non-native species such as Norwegian Spruce. 

He added he felt that much could have been done better for the site, however, he would reluctantly move approval as per the Officer’s recommendation as there were not sufficient planning reasons to refuse the application.

Councillor D McKenna asked as regards the lighting levels, and whether Officers had spoken to the applicant in terms of having lights along the fence line, rather than floodlights, so that they were only lighting the surface of the arena, rather than the wider area.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the scheme was as presented, including three, four-metre-high floodlights.  She reiterated that their position had been moved to reduce their impact, and there were a number of conditions and those had been agreed in conjunction with Officers from the Environmental Health Section.  She noted they included the hours of operation within the period November to March, for two hours between 1600 and 1900.

Councillor P Jopling noted she would second the proposal from Councillor J Elmer, adding that the there were several issues, and the application was not perfect, however, she dd not feel there were sufficient grounds to turn down the application.  She noted that perhaps a cowl on each of the floodlights could prevent light pollution, however, she would second the proposal as put.

Councillor A Bell agreed that the application was not a perfect application, however, such uses in rural settings were not uncommon and the Officer had noted that such a use would likely have been approved.  He noted the limiting of the use via condition, and reiterated the point made by Councillor J Elmer, that there needed to be a robust landscaping plan. 

Councillor K Shaw noted he had sympathy with the Local Member and local residents, however, the application was as put before Members and the conditions Officers were proposing aimed to mitigate the impact as much as possible and therefore, he would support approval, as he could not see any grounds to reject the application.

The application had been moved for approval by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor P Jopling and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions set out within the report, and amendment to Condition 3 as referred to by the Principal Planning Officer.