Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Retention of a stable with tack room.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

54.2          This application was for retention of a stable with tack room.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 21 December 2021 for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 January 2022.

54.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application sought permission for the retention of the stable and tack room building which was connected to High Beeches on a triangular paddock that rose to the east.  The application site was within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Planning Committee had deferred the application at its last meeting in order to allow a site visit to take place to assess the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  An assessment of the material considerations was included at Pages No. 30-32 of the Committee report and, as set out in the report, Officers considered that the stable building would not be overtly prominent within the landscape, nor would it be of significant detrimental impact on the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to warrant a refusal.  As such, the proposal was recommended for permission, subject to conditions relating to additional planting and the painting of the stable block.

54.4          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor; however, he first asked for clarification as to what planting was proposed and the Planning Officer drew attention to condition 3 at Page No. 33 of the Committee report which required planting of a Beech hedgerow, as indicated on the plans.  A Member noted from the Planning Committee Site Visit that the building was close to a Cotswold drystone wall so she asked where the hedge would go and whether it would have an impact on the building given that Beech hedges could be quite large.  In addition, she asked whether it was necessary to have rooflights on the stable roof.  In response, the Planning Officer drew attention to the site plan, circulated at Page No. 35 of the Committee report, which showed the proposed Beech hedge behind the drystone wall; this was what had been put forward by the applicant but the Planning Officer indicated that it may be possible to request additional planting around the sides as an alternative if Members were not content with the proposal.  The Chair indicated that, in his view, it would be impossible for a Beech hedge to grow satisfactorily in the space between the wall and the back of the building.  He expressed the opinion that the hedge needed to be on the other side and felt it was a shame that the applicant had chosen to build the stable in the precise location – had it been located slightly further down the hill it would have been shielded by the existing hedge so he could appreciate the frustration of local residents.  He asked whether it would be possible to plant the hedge on the verge side and the Planning Officer confirmed this was something which could be looked into; however, she suspected it would be outside of the applicant’s ownership and was likely to be highways land. 

54.5          A Member expressed the view that, from the discussion which had taken place, it seemed Members and Officers were trying to find a way to make the building less obvious and she did not think that was possible, therefore, she proposed that the application be refused on the basis that it would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  This proposal was duly seconded.  A Member indicated that she would still like a response to the query regarding the rooflights and whether they were entirely necessary.  The Chair suggested it may be possible to move the rooflights to the other side of the ridge; however, that would be very inconvenient as the light entering the stable would be limited.  Nevertheless, it was an option which could be discussed further, should the motion to refuse the application fall.  Another Member indicated that he disliked retrospective applications such as this and would be happy to support the motion to refuse subject to appropriate policy justification being put forward – he pointed out that the property was not overlooked by anyone so he was struggling to find a policy reason to refuse the application.  In response, the Planning Officer clarified that the motion had been put forward on the basis of the adverse impact to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and policy SD7 of the Joint Core Strategy stated that “all development proposals within the setting of the Cotswold AONB will be required to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance its landscape, scenic beauty, wildlife, cultural heritage and other special qualities”.  The Member indicated that he was happy with the policy; however, his view was that the Joint Core Strategy was going to be out of date and carried little weight at this point so he wished to seek assurance that the Council would be able to defend an appeal on that basis.  With regard to the rooflights, the Development Manager advised that, whilst suggestions had been made as to how they may be repositioned, Members needed to determine the scheme before them.  In terms of the landscaping scheme, Members needed to consider whether making changes would reduce the impact -  from the photographs displayed it would certainly break the view but he was unsure whether that would lessen the harm.  Ultimately, Members needed to decide whether the proposed conditions would mitigate the harm to the point where the scheme was acceptable, in which case it should be permitted; however, if they felt it was still unacceptable then it should be refused.  The Planning Officer advised that, should Members be minded to refuse the application, the refusal reasons would also include reference to policies in respect of equine facilities, including Policy RCN4 of the emerging local plan.

54.6          Upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED           That the application be REFUSED on the basis that it would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.