Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused due to the area of hardstanding going beyond what is reasonably required in connection with authorised use of the land and the building. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 12 May 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 was retrospective and it was considered that the works undertaken were acceptable in terms of the principle of development and the impacts of the proposed development on the character of the area and the amenities of nearby residential properties. 

                        Mrs. D. Woolrich spoke against the application.  She commented on the impact of the proposal on the residents and spoke of the lights, music and CCTV which had now been included on the development and said that the site was very intrusive to the residents at numbers 27 to 47.  Mrs. Woolrich referred to the site history and highlighted the first application for a 40 metre by 20 metre riding area with six stables for private use, which it was felt was excessive for private use.  The hardstanding area had not originally been requested or agreed to, but had since been put in place and the gate to the site had been changed to a large security gate.  Mrs. Woolrich requested that the application be refused. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Councillor Carolyn Thomas felt that the field should be put back to what it was originally with the hardstanding being removed and replaced with grass.  Councillor Christine Jones concurred that there should be no hardstanding in the field. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Tim Newhouse, spoke against the application.  He explained that he had met with the applicant in 2011 and had indicated that he had no objection to the application as long as no hardstanding was laid and that natural screening was offered by the applicant in a straight line back from the boundary between numbers 25 and 27.  At the Planning Committee meeting in December 2011, a speaker for the applicant said that the site would be properly maintained and that screening would be offered and as a result of this, the application was approved by the Committee.  However, in April 2012, hardstanding was dumped on the site which was contrary to the permission that had been granted and since then, the applicant had submitted and withdrawn numerous planning applications to prevent her having to restore the site.  Councillor Newhouse felt that if there was to be any hardstanding on the site it should be grasscrete and should not extend beyond the straight line back from the boundary between numbers 25 and 27.  He felt that the applicant should comply with the permission granted and should maintain the site and provide screening as suggested in December 2011. 

            Councillor Derek Butler raised significant concern that the applicant could be granted permission and then fail to comply with what had been approved.  He felt that the proposal should be thrown straight out and in highlighting paragraph 7.13 said that the application must be refused and the applicant be asked to comply with the original approval. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the extension to the stables was difficult to see and therefore did not impact on any of the neighbours.  He suggested that the hardcore area was a turning space and had been installed for safety reasons.  He said that the area was not unsightly and could be conditioned to apply topsoil and reseed the area and therefore not refuse the application. 

            Councillor Mike Peers expressed his amazement at what had been undertaken at the site, contrary to the planning approval that had been granted.  He applauded the Local Member for his investigations and agreed that the application should be refused and returned to what had originally been permitted.       

            The officer said that the application was not necessarily wrong just because it was retrospective.  Negotiations had been undertaken to reduce the size of the hardstanding and a condition that grasscrete be used could be imposed if Members were minded to approve the application.  The Development Manager reiterated that negotiations had taken place with the applicant which included discussions on conditions.  The hardstanding on site exceeded what was required and discussions had also taken place about the turning circle to establish what was necessary. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas reiterated her earlier comment that the hardstanding should be removed and the screening put in line with the boundary between numbers 25 and 27 as approved in the original application.  She added that she felt that the application was overdevelopment of the land and not in compliance with the planning permission that had been granted.  She also referred to the earlier comment from the third party speaker that there were lights on the site.  The officer explained that the plan before the Committee showed what the reduction would be if this application was approved.  He added that lights on the site had not been part of the original application and that an application would have to be submitted if they were to remain on the site as the lights were currently unauthorised. 

            Councillor Mike Peers suggested that the application before the committee be refused and the applicant be asked to submit a new application.  The Development Manager sought clarification from the committee that the reason for refusal was that the area of hardstanding was not reasonably required in connection with the authorised use of the land and building.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused due to the area of hardstanding going beyond what is reasonably required in connection with authorised use of the land and the building.