Agenda item

Application Proposal; Proposed erection of a stable block

The Planning Officer presented his report to members, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He provided images of the site and the proposed plans. He further pointed out the boundary of the conservation area which ran along the opposite side of the lane.

He informed members that the map which was included within the officer report in the agenda was incorrect and that the proposed position of the stables was now much closer to the road and in line with the built form of existing dwellings.

He explained to members that the site was on a slope and that the proposed stables would be stepped down from the road and explained that the gate and the access was not part of the application. The Planning Officer understood that the access was created for use in constructing the new dwelling and if the applicant wished to retain this access it would be subject to a separate planning application. The Planning Officer suggested that it would be possible to include an informative to the planning permission, if granted, to state a time frame for the access to be closed.

Ms A Ferris, Mr S Sparrow and Mr R Goldsmith spoke in objection to the application. Ms A Ferris also read out comments made by Mr P Cooper who was unable to attend the meeting. Their comments included;

·         Concern over the lack of manure storage, which could leak into the field and street, possibly leading to a public health issue.

·         The scale of the stables shown on the agenda report is smaller than the actual size of the stable.

·         Concern that stipulations and conditions imposed may be ignored

·         The access was for construction of the bungalow and has remained without planning permission.

·         The plans are inaccurate. The agent has been made aware of this.

·         Visual amenity concerns, which does not comply with policy EQ8 of the SSDC Local Plan.

·         This will be a blot on the landscape. Stable is large and will require a huge amount of excavation. 

·         Close to Conservation Area

·         There is little screening; the building will be visible from all around.

Councillor Hayward Burt, Ward Member, described the stable as a sizable intervention, as also described by the landscape officer in his comments detailed in the agenda report. He explained to members that the application did not meet the requirements of policy EQ8 of the SSDC Local Plan. He further stated that the site was situated close to the Conservation Area and suggested that the high number of conditions which were proposed were an indication of the concerns for the proposal and the site.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hayward Burt. Although he was pleased that the proposed position of the building had been moved, he felt that building was too large and too close to the Conservation Area.

The Development Control Manager confirmed that the road was an unclassified road and that access to this site would not normally need permission for domestic use. He felt that a traffic assessment would have been unnecessary. He further clarified that he was unaware that the plans were inaccurate. However, if members had concerns over the accuracy of the plans, he suggested that the application could be deferred to allow the accuracy of the plans to be confirmed.

During the discussion, one member suggested that should the application be permitted that he would like to see an additional condition added to ensure that the temporary access would be closed and the hedge replaced.

One member sought clarification over whether there were additional buildings on the site or whether buildings had been removed from the site which were not shown on the plans. The Planning Officer confirmed that he had visited the site and that there were no other buildings on the site.

One member questioned whether the site, which was on a slope, was suitable for horses.

Following the discussion it was proposed and seconded that the application be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation as the application was contrary to SSDC Local Plan policies EQ2, EQ8 and EQ3.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 5 votes in support, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/00792/FUL be refused for the following reason;

01.       The proposed development involving a sizeable engineering intervention in combination with the built form and associated works by reason of its sensitive location in an elevated rural position juxtaposed to the conservation area and within a valued landscape locality would result in a detrimental impact that neither respects or enhances local context, local distinctiveness, and the sense of place and would have a prejudicial impact for the setting of the Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EQ2, EQ3 and EQ8 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028 and the National Planning Policy Framework including para.109.

(Voting: 5 votes in support, 3 against and 2 abstentions)