Agenda item

That planning permission be refused due to there being no justification for buildings of the proposed scale outside the settlement boundary within open countryside.      

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 1 September 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting on 23 July 2014 to allow a site visit to be undertaken.  The Local Member had indicated his concerns and objections had been received as a result of the consultation.

                        Mr. C. Davies spoke against the application and said that applications for the same site had been rejected as they were an unacceptable intrusion in the open countryside.  He commented on the proposals and did not feel that the agricultural nature of the proposal justified the stable and agricultural storage building.  He said that the applicant repaired horse boxes and it was reported that the applicant would forego permission for a detached garage within the curtilage of the dwelling, which had not currently been built, if permission for an agricultural building was granted.  Mr. Davies queried why the applicant would do this if he did not intend to use the proposed building as a garage/workshop.  The new building would overlook into his property and the size of the proposed building would be out of character with the area.     

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He concurred that the building could not be justified and added that the type of haylage feed needed for horses did not need to be kept indoors.  He highlighted paragraph 7.02 where the consent for the erection of a large garage was reported which was still valid.  He also felt that the three acre paddock area did not warrant the size of the proposed building.  He referred to the comments in the report that there would be limited visual impact from the front of the site but added that it could be seen from the neighbouring gardens.  He felt that the application should be refused due to it being in the open countryside. 

            Councillor Billy Mullin raised concern about the size of the building which was only partly within the current garden area and agreed that the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that all of the properties in the row had extended their gardens into the open countryside and queried whether the permission included permitted development rights in the rear gardens.  He said that policy did not prevent building in garden areas and agricultural buildings were permitted in the open countryside.  He felt that it was important to identify whether permitted development rights were granted when the gardens were extended.  Councillor Derek Butler spoke of the land to the right of the property which was a large garden area and referred to previous refusals of applications for extensions to gardens to increase the residential boundary.  He felt that the existing boundary should be reinforced. 

Councillor Gareth Roberts said that certain things were permitted in the open countryside and added that he believed that the adjoining garden had been extended with permission and permitted development rights lifted.  He suggested that a hedge or fence could be erected where the original boundary had been and said that he had not heard any comments which would make him support refusal of the application.  Councillor Richard Jones said that developments in the open countryside were permitted if agricultural use justified it and the officer felt that it did. 

In response to the comments made, the officer said that the proposed stable would be partly in and partly out of the residential curtilage.  A previous application to extend the garden had been refused and there was no defined boundary between the original boundary and the extended area.  The application was not for change of use of the land and the proposed building was for the stabling of horses and keeping machinery associated with the land and was therefore recommended for approval. 

Councillor Bithell raised concern about the garden area and the building which was in the open countryside.  The Development Manager suggested that the erection of a boundary fence or gate could be conditioned to reinforce the settlement boundary. 

In summing up, Councillor Owen Thomas reiterated his comments that policy did not allow for buildings to be erected unless they related to agricultural purposes and said that he did not see the justification for this proposal. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application against officer recommendation was CARRIED due to there being no justification for buildings of the proposed scale outside the settlement boundary within open countryside.      

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused due to there being no justification for buildings of the proposed scale outside the settlement boundary within open countryside.