RM

DECISION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

The Committee had visited the site as part of their site inspections.  The proposal was to remove planning Conditions 6 and 7 attached to Planning Permission Reference No. RR/2019/1370/P.  On 16 August 2019, the Committee had approved a change of use of agricultural land to part equestrian including retrospective planning permission for stable buildings, a tack room and store shed, as well as an improved access to the track.  In approving the application, the Committee added a further three conditions (5, 6 and 7).  The Applicant considered that Conditions 6 and 7 were unreasonable.

Consideration was also given to the revised information regarding Condition 2 which was circulated to Members prior to the meeting; this information showed a revised location of the store shed.  The Committee heard from the local Ward Member who was present at the meeting and was not in favour of supporting approval of the application.  Objections were also noted from Mountfield and Brightling Parish Councils.

Members felt that the decision they had made in August 2019 and the additional conditions applied were, having regard to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance pertinent and reasonable and should remain. They wanted to ensure that the application referred to the Applicant only and that once the permitted use had ceased the land would be restored to its agricultural use and condition to protect, in the long-term, the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  It was Members’ view that without these conditions, the development would not be acceptable as the use of the land and the remains of the buildings in perpetuity would not conserve the AONB.  Therefore, Members considered that the application should be refused.   

Councillor Mrs Barnes moved the motion to refuse (Full Planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Coleman.

Resolution voted on – the motion was CARRIED.

REASON FOR REFUSAL:

1.     Planning permission RR/2019/1370/P was for the retrospective change of use of land to part equestrian with additional development including stables, a tack room, a store shed, improved access and track, and new hard standing in front of stable block. The development is in the countryside, designated as part of the High Weald AONB. Having regard to Policy DC02 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) (emerging at the time of permission RR/2019/1370/P but now fully adopted) proposals for equestrian development should, individually and cumulatively, safeguard the intrinsic and locally distinctive character and amenities of the countryside, with particular regard to the conservation of the AONB (Policies OSS4, RA2, RA3, EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the DaSA and paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework also apply). The Council considers that in determining permission RR/2019/1370/P full regard was had to these various policy objectives and Conditions 6 and 7, having also considered paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, were appropriate as the conditions were a suitable means of allowing small-scale development but also protecting, in the long-term, the character and appearance of the AONB. The removal of Conditions 6 and 7 would compromise the conservation of the AONB as were the Applicant to move on and/or the use cease, the buildings would remain indefinitely which would lead to a scenario where unused buildings would litter the landscape causing harm to the AONB’s intrinsic character which, having regard to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, would be at odds with the Council’s legal duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.