REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 22 MARCH 2002

1.

TCP/05327/H P/01804/01 Parish/Name: Newport Registration Date: 16/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Retention of covered yard providing storage area for tractors, agricultural machinery and livestock, (building A); continued use of building as workshop, storage area, stable and tack room (building B); hardstanding area, sand school and resurfaced access track Little Mousehill Farm, Littletown Lane, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO33 4RS

Site and Location

Application relates to land currently used for mixed use of agriculture/horticulture situated on eastern side of Briddlesford Road bounded to north and east by Littletown Lane which is unmade track.

Relevant History

Application seeking agricultural prior approval for two storage buildings on part OS Parcel 6066 was approved by letter dated 20 December 2000.

Application seeking consent for stable block, tack room and feed store together with alterations to vehicular access approved in October 2000. This development which occupies an adjacent field to the west has been implemented.

Details of Application

There are several aspects to current submission which seeks retrospective consent for the various works.

In respect of the two storage buildings approved under agricultural prior notification procedure, consent is sought to use one building (A) to provide covered yard containing animals, tractors and agricultural machinery with second building (B) currently used as part stable and tack room and agricultural workshop with agricultural storage. Each building measures approximately 20 metres by 11.5 metres finished in dark green profiled steel cladding and are located at eastern end of site to the side of rear of principal dwelling on site.

Retention of sand school which measures 39 by 25 metres which is located directly behind one of aforementioned buildings.

Retention of hardstanding area in front of buildings.

Retention of tarmacked access road which runs diagonally across site in north westerly/south easterly direction. Road is approximately 5.8 metres wide and is fenced on both sides giving access to recently constructed buildings and forecourt.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Application site lies in open countryside outside any designated development envelope and it is considered the following policies of Unitary Development Plan are particularly relevant:

S4 - Protection of Countryside from Inappropriate Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within Site.

D3 - Landscaping.

G2 - Consolidation of Settlements Outside Development Envelopes.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C15 - Appropriate Agricultural Diversification.

C8 - Agricultural Support Activities.

C22 - Keeping of Horses for Recreational Purposes.

C23 - Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside.

C25 - All Weather Riding Facilities.

Representations

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Environmental Health Officer advises that initially there were concerns regarding close proximity of Building A to nearby residential property in respect of potential disamenity which could have been caused as a result of use of building for livestock housing. Having spoken to applicant's agent, he has confirmed there are no animals at present, but proposal to use building for sheep and chickens. On this basis he raises no objection to application subject to condition attached to any consent restricting use of this building to ensure no livestock is kept within this building.

Evaluation

Main planning considerations are firstly, development plan policy contained within the Unitary Development Plan, relevant national guidance and appropriateness of development in this rural location.

Planning background indicates that both building (A) and (B) as identified on submitted plan were approved under Agricultural Prior Notification Procedure on the premise that such buildings were reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Just prior to this decision planning consent granted for stable block on adjoining field.

Since these planning decisions have been issued and following formal complaint to this office Planning Contravention Notice has been issued seeking to clarify in particular use to which "agricultural" buildings are put to. Returned Notice confirms date on which both buildings and sand school were constructed and also advises that non-agricultural storage and keeping of non-agricultural livestock commenced in June 2001.

National guidance in PPG7 seeks to ensure rural development is of appropriate design and scale for its location. Guidance note goes on to state that in many rural areas provision needs to be made for new buildings as well as re-use of existing buildings and sensitive small scale new developments can be accommodated in and around many settlements. Note also points out in paragraph 3.4 that agricultural and forestry permitted development rights are granted to meet farming and forestry needs and they should not be abused to circumvent normal planning policies on new building in open countryside.

Members should also be aware that amendments to the GPDO in 1997 provide for situations where buildings approved under Prior Notification do not remain in agricultural use. Briefly, regulations state that if a building erected under specified Agricultural Permitted Development Rights after 1997 permanently ceases to be used for agriculture within ten years of its substantial completion, and planning permission has not been granted authorising development for purposes other than agriculture within three years of the permanent cessation of its agricultural use and there is no outstanding appeal, the building must be removed unless the Local Planning Authority has agreed otherwise.

Policies of the Unitary Development Plan generally seek to ensure appropriate design standards for all development. Policy C1 seeks to support appropriate development in the countryside provided landscape is protected. Policy C15 along with advice contained within PPG7 supports principle of agricultural diversification.

Policy C18 generally supports related agricultural activity provided such development requires rural location, is of benefit to rural economy, is well designed, does not have significant impact on nearby residential property, has adequate road access and does not detract from landscape beauty.

In respect of keeping of horses and related activity Policy C22 supports such recreational use subject to specific criteria. Similar provisions relate to siting of stable blocks and provision of all-weather riding facilities in countryside.

In respect of buildings constructed, applicant maintains that building (A) is to be used for housing of livestock (sheep and chickens) whilst building (B) will be used partly for stabling of horse together with ancillary hay storage and agricultural machinery material. Workshop area is intended to be used for work in connection with farm.

From a recent site inspection it does not appear that either building is used for related agricultural storage purposes with building (A) incorporating tractor, dumper trucks, pick-up van, private vehicle, building materials, cement mixer and generator and with building B comprising block work stable unit together with storage of hay, timber sheets and further building material.

Whilst in principle the use of building (A) for keeping of sheep and chickens may be acceptable, particularly bearing in mind comments from Environmental Health Officer, I am of the opinion that, as currently used, neither building is likely to satisfy requirements of Prior Notification decision in that buildings are not used as originally intended under Prior Notification and specified in application, which stated buildings to be used for hay and agricultural machinery storage barn. Furthermore, design and external finish of building are not considered appropriate for such usage.

In terms of building (B), clearly use of part of this building for stabling is not appropriate and again in design terms, any building incorporating steel clad structure and block work would not normally be permitted for stabling purposes.

In terms of sand school such feature it is felt should be more appropriately located close to or adjoining approved stable block and not in relatively remote location, presumably being utilised by stable unit within building (B).

With regards to recently constructed tarmac access road which runs diagonally across site, agent, in support, states that access point referred to was served by 2.5 metre wide road poorly constructed of compacted earth which, due to sharp bend, was not accessible by many vehicles. New access road was constructed to it's current specification and width to aid delivery of materials for construction of barns (A) and (B), to allow emergency service access to client's property and to enable easier access for modern farm vehicles.

Point should be made that site is bounded by access track way on two sides and at time of Agricultural Prior Notification it was assumed the buildings would be utilising access at or adjacent to existing dwelling house. Whilst not ideal, standard of access is similar to many other agricultural concerns and it is not considered sufficiently serious in terms of standard to warrant construction of new roadway which, given its size and method of construction, represents significant feature in locality. Indeed, it is considered that roadway has fundamentally altered rural character of area and is far in excess of what would normally be required to service agricultural buildings.

Finally, area of land between buildings and track way has been laid with scalpings to provide hardstand area and whilst works in itself may not be considered to be unreasonable this aspect of application should be read in conjunction with application as submitted in it's entirety when considering impact of scheme on locality.

Consent for both buildings was granted on agricultural justification in this rural location. From previous comments and inspection there are serious concerns as to whether or not buildings are currently put to active agricultural related uses and certainly within building (B), formation of stable block and associated hay storage are without doubt not agricultural and it is important to note that construction of such stable blocking materials used would not be supported by the Planning Authority. Stable blocks are generally approved on basis of traditional finish, i.e. timber with felted or clad roofs in compliance with policy, and construction of stable block within block work and corrugated sheeted building would not be favourably considered by Committee. In respect of sand school, given that keeping of horses cannot be supported in planning terms within these buildings the sand school itself is inappropriately located, remote from approved stable complex and itself represents additional visual intrusion in rural landscape. In order to minimise such impact such facilities are expected to be located close to stable complex they serve.

The construction of the access road both in terms of it's scale, design and construction is considered inappropriate and somewhat excessive to serve buildings approved under Prior Notification. It is considered that both holding and buildings together with dwelling house could reasonably be served from existing tracks and there is therefore no over-riding justification for such works. Furthermore, the laying of a 5.8 metre wide road with tarmac finish and enclosed fencing has, in my opinion, had considerable detrimental visual impact on locality and fundamentally altered former rural character of landscape.

Letter from agent requests deferment of application to allow for further negotiations with alterations that may well avoid recommended enforcement action. He refers to entrance road which, in his opinion, must remain in one form or another to provide adequate access to the farmhouse and its building. His client however, did not anticipate planning objections being raised to its construction and width. Subject to negotiations, his client is prepared to alter this aspect hopefully in a manner that is acceptable. He also wishes to eliminate the sand school from the current application and resubmit this as a separate application to be considered in the near future. His actions, it is suggested, should largely eliminate the objections raised in the officer's report. Agent wishes Members to be fully aware of the willingness of his client to negotiate and trust that application can be deferred for future negotiations or at least considered on site by Members of the Committee.

For reasons outlined above I consider works in their totality have had adverse impact on rural character of locality and there are serious planning objections to retention of some of these facilities and use of buildings for non-agricultural purposes and I recommend accordingly.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report I am of the opinion that there are serious planning objections to this application which significantly change the character and appearance of the locality. I therefore consider the scheme to be contrary to the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies S4, G2, G5, D1, C1, C23 and C25 and have no alternative but to recommend the application for refusal.

1. Recommendation - Refusal

2. Recommendation - That enforcement action be authorised to secure the removal of the roadway and adjoining fencing and sand paddock and fencing and to discontinue the use of the buildings approved under prior notification procedure for non-agricultural use and storage purposes with a three month period for compliance.

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The site lies in a rural area and the works involving the construction of the access roadway and sand paddock comprise an undesirable intensification of inappropriate development which is prejudicial to the character of the area contrary to Policies S2, C25, E2, G5 and C1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2

The use of the approved buildings for the keeping of livestock and for stabling and related storage represents an appropriate use of purpose built agricultural storage buildings not designed for such purposes contrary to Policies C23 and D of the IW Unitary Development Plan and advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7 issued in February 1997.