Recommendation: Conditional approval
Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of land from agricultural to mixed equestrian/agriculture plus erection a stable buildings with associated hardstanding. (Part Retrospective)
Applicant: Mr Kingsbury
The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 59 to 82.
The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates.
Emily Temple, agent, spoke in support of the application. Emily thanked officers for their thorough report. Emily stated that the family were expert horse owners, and the family itself was quite large and required space for them and their horses to live, and as such the use of the site would not be commercial. Emily added that the base of the stable buildings had been constructed, however construction ceased when they were advised that full planning permission was required. Once the application was submitted, full reports related to trees and ecology were submitted. Emily stated that the stable would be timber clad in appearance, and away from the road and vantage points. The application would allow for mixed use to allow for grazing of both sheep and horses. Emily concluded by stating that no other changes were proposed to the wider land on the site.
Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether any additional large trees would be harmed by the proposals, and queried whether named permission could be applied to the family. Mark Chancellor, case officer, stated that the tree officer was happy with the proposals, as encroachment of the root protection area of the large tree was around 17.5 percent, and it was at around 20 percent when arboriculturists usually raised concerns. In addition, holes would be drilled on the base of the structure and the existing storage would be removed to help protect the tree. Mark added that officers were content with the relationship between the closer large tree and the proposed structures, and therefore the other large trees situated further away from the proposed structures would also be acceptable. Regarding personal permission, Mark stated that it would be unreasonable to apply a personal permission as the permission was being applied to the owners of the property, and planning policy guidance stated that personal permission should be avoided wherever possible.
RESOLVED That application number 203534 be approved, subject to conditions and informative as set out in agenda pages 60 to 61.