Agenda item

Installation of concrete hardstandings and pathways to accommodate a

horse walker

La Luna Farm, Mill Lane, Heugh, Northumberland, NE18 0PS

Installation of concrete hardstandings and pathways to accommodate a

horse walker

La Luna Farm, Mill Lane, Heugh, Northumberland, NE18 0PS

R Soulsby, Planning Officer provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation. 

H Horrocks addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       He was also speaking for a number of other concerned local residents within the locality of the application. 

·       The applicant currently only had temporary planning permission for a chalet, however this development, with the laying of concrete, seemed very permanent.  It seemed presumptuous of the applicant that permanent status would be obtained for the chalet and thus the timing of this development seemed to be premature.

·       The proposed development was outside the nearest curtilage, in the middle of fields which were within the Green Belt and within an area of high landscape value and as such any applicant needed to consider the impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  Under planning law this was not just a case of whether it could be seen or blocks a view

·       This development appeared to be very visible from Mill Lane and some local people believed this proposal would negatively impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

·       No clear argument had been put forward by the applicant in the planning documents on why the proposed development met planning regulations. In the recent Stamfordham Parish Council minutes the applicant had stated that the development was for business use only, however in the Council’s technical submission it referred to recreational use.  Previous planning applications made in relation to La Luna were made on the basis of the planning was for business use.

·       The arguments put forward seemed to be confused and contradictory and the Committee needed to assess whether this development was just for the applicant’s hobby activity and if so then any future applications associated with La Luna should also be assessed on that basis.

·       The opinions of several horse owners, vets, the British Horse Society and leading equine companies had all confirmed that this equipment was not essential for owning and exercising a horse.

·       This appeared to be a retrospective application as at least 7 cement lorries had gone up the lane to La Luna and concrete was being laid where this development was planned.

·       He asked the Committee to take into consideration the history of retrospective planning matters related to this applicant and La Luna and that the applicant had shown a total disregard for the Council’s planning policies.

·       He requested that the Committee also assess the environmental impact of the development as he did not believe that a full independent review had been conducted that considered the proximity of the muck heap to a water source; impact on local wildlife including barn owls, newts and bats; and impact on the local spring.

·       The applicant had stated at the Parish Council meeting that she was protecting Green Belt however it was believed that the Green Belt was being destroyed by this development.

·       A petition with 72 signatures had shown local people were against this development and the application should be refused.

Councillor Jones, the local Ward Councillor addressed the Committee.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The property was within the Ponteland West Ward and was within the Green Belt.  She had been surprised that the application was recommended for approval considering the robust reasons put forward for the previous application to be refused.

·       She considered this was creeping development and questioned what facilities were required essential to support a temporary home and residential caravan; why the fields had been designated as La Luna rather than the name of the farms.

·       She questioned the reason for this latest application for a hardstanding and horse walker and how vital this was to a horse owner.

·       She questioned if this was a retrospective application following the delivery of concrete to the site or whether that had been for a previous application. 

·       She highlighted that the report said that there had been 6 objections received yet there had been a petition signed by 72 people.

·       She asked the Committee to refuse the application.

C. Ross addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       Thanked the Officers for recommending approval and for the succinct report which clearly identified what was being sought, why it was acceptable and why it should be approved.

·       The applicant was seeking permission to replace an existing gravel surface with some concrete and to site a horse walker at the end of the existing buildings. 

·       This was not a retrospective application, with the concrete being used for the barn foundations.

·       Much had been said about mission creep and the temporary chalet, but officers had focussed on the content of the application and clearly set out that a permanent planning permission was in place for the access road, the buildings and the arena.

·       The Planning Inspector who had allowed the previous appeal also acknowledged that respondents to the appeal had concerns with the evolution of the site, however the Inspector confirmed that the appeal should be determined on the basis of what was before him. The same should be done for this application.

·       In respect of the NLP, Officers had concluded that the principle of development was acceptable because the proposed development was proportionate and would provide improved facilities supporting the growth and expansion of the existing enterprise, which accorded with STP2 and ECN14 of the NLP.

·       The development was appropriate within the Green Belt and would not cause harm to the openness, accords with the NPPF,STP7 and STP8 of the NLP and the wider exemptions to Green Belt policy and the forms of development which were Green Belt compliant.

·       There were no objections from Highways, the proposed development was well screened and not readily visible and there would be no ecological impact.

·       The application should be assessed on its own merit taking account of the material considerations and conclusions outlined in the report.

·       Asked that the application be approved in accordance with Officer recommendation.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, the following information was provided:-

·       The Officer had visited the site and there was no evidence of the hardstanding or horse walker and the access to the site was gravel.

·       The application for the chalet had been granted temporary approval at appeal and this would end in 2023.  The applicant was in the process of submitting an application for the permanent siting of the chalet, however this would be part of a separate assessment. The barns and riding arena had permanent permissions.

·       Members were reminded to focus on the application before them today and were directed to the tests in paragraph 149b of the NPPF and Policy ECN13 of the NLP.

·       The provision of concrete in the countryside was not unusual and Members must decide if this was acceptable.

Councillor Towns proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report which was seconded by Councillor Wearmouth.

Members were concerned that this was mission creep and advised that they would not be happy if these were the tactics being used in relation to this or any other application coming forward and expressed concern that the history of the site could not be taken into account.  The use of concrete on farms was highlighted and was not felt to significantly harm the openness of the Green Belt and policies did support the application. 

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as follows:  FOR 6; AGAINST 1; ABSTAIN 1.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.

Councillor Jones re-joined the meeting.