Agenda item

Application Proposal: Change of use of an existing timber stable block to a boarding cattery of up for 6 pens.

The Specialist Development Management Officer presented his report to members. He explained that the application was for the change of use of an existing stable block for use as a boarding cattery.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided image to show the location of the site and the proposed parking and cattery building. He also provided plans to show the floor plans and photographs of the site and the access lane to the site.

He explained that the NPPF provided strong support for businesses in rural areas, however there was significant local concern over highway safety.

He advised members that there had been no objection raised from Somerset County Council Highways or from the SSDC Highways Consultant. He also advised that there were no major residential amenity concerns as the development would create little noise and the stable was already in situ.

A representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee. He offered his thanks to the Planning Officer for including the full Parish Council comments within the report, however pointed out that the Parish Council did not agree with his recommendation.

He explained that on three separate occasions, The Planning Inspectorate had agreed with local residents and agreed that the access was dangerous and dismissed planning appeals. He felt that the highways advice was inconsistent.

He explained that the access was narrow, had grass in the centre of the road and contained a dangerous hump back bridge. He summarised that the Parish Council would normally look to support rural business, but felt that this was in the wrong location.

Members of the public spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         The access lane was a dead-end lane which was in a poor state of repair, which serves as access for 22 houses.

·         The lane runs for 780m directly from its junction to the B3153.

·         There is an informal traffic protocol adopted by residents which requires that drivers who have not passed the bridge are the ones that should reverse when meeting an oncoming car.

·         The lane is already heavily used by tractors, cars, septic tank lorries, delivery lorries and recycling/refuse lorries.

·         There are only three passing places; two of these are field entrances.

·         There is a blind summit on the lane over a hump-back bridge.

·         There have been several accidents on this lane.

·         The road is used by pedestrians.

·         The private access to the site is only 3.2 meters away from windows of neighbouring properties.

·         This is not a small-scale development in the context of its location.

·         There could be up to 24 car movements each day made by people dropping off and collecting cats. This does not include vets, deliveries and other visitors.

·         Concern that there would be additional cars parked in the paddock, to enable space for visitors to park. This would provide further effect visual amenity for adjoining residents.

·         Planning applications over the years have always been strictly restricted for the use of residents and no commercial aspect has been permitted in any case.

·         The footprint of the stable was 70m2 and there are 8 pens shown on the plans.

·         Questioned whether the highways officer carried out a site visit.

·         Safety, convenience and quality of life for local residents will be reduced.

·         The property currently has equestrian use, which was only for residential use.

·         There is no provision for storage or collection of waste.

·         There garages referred to in the highway comments, however there is nor reference to any garages in the application.

·         No-one in the settlement needs a cattery.

The applicant addressed the Committee. She confirmed that the application was for 6 pens. She also advised that cats would normally stay for a minimum time period of a week or more. She added that she currently drives to work and should this application be approved, she would be able to work from home and would reduce the amount of car journeys on the lane. She added that she very rarely needs to reverse down the lane.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, the Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the conditions to restrict the use to residential use only, which were added to previous applications had been added for good reason. He felt that the SCC Highways Dept had not visited the site and explained that there was no need to put a cattery at the end of this lane. He pointed out that there was a hump-bridge on this lane and felt that the application should be refused.

Specialist Development Management Officer confirmed that anyone that lives in these properties were able to work from home and explained that the conditions which had been applied previously were not there to restrict future development. He also explained that policy supported businesses in rural locations.

In response to a question from a member, the Specialist Development Management Officer advised that this application would not normally be allowed within permitted development rights; the application would always need planning permission. He also confirmed that pre-application advice had not been sought.

During the discussion, members commented that the residential amenity of other neighbours would be impacted.

Councillor Nick Weeks, also Ward Member, explained that he was disappointed that he was not able to support his application. He explained that he had used this lane and felt that the location for wrong for this application.

Another Councillor added that people could have deliveries everyday and felt that home working should be encouraged. He pointed out that the highways advice advised that there were no concerns and his advice should be considered. He added that businesses should be supported.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse added that the road was overloaded.

Another member questioned whether additional passing places could be added along the lane. Councillor Nick Weeks advised that this wasn’t possible along this stretch of road.

In response to a question from a member, the Specialist Development Management Officer advised that although a thorough assessment had not been carried out, he felt that there would be an increase in traffic movements along this road.

It was proposed and seconded that the planning application should be approved as per the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote, this was not carried.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application should be refused as there would be an increase in traffic and that the residential amenity for adjoining residents would be adversely affected.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 votes in support, 4 against with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning 18/02992/FUL be refused contrary to the planning officer recommendation for the following reasons;

01.          The proposal, by reason of the increased use of the substandard Alford Well Farm Lane, would have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety, contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

02.          The proposal, by reason of increased vehicle movements and disturbance, will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(Voting: 6 votes in support, 4 against and 1 abstention)