REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 3 OCTOBER 2003

1.

TCP/14537/F P/01105/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Registration Date: 30/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Stable block comprising 8 stables, 2 store rooms & 2 tack rooms; formation of access track part OS Parcels 4261, 5760 and 6360 including access track, off, Newnham Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application and will have taken seventeen weeks to determine following deferral by Members for site inspection.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to land situated immediately south of Millgrove residential estate and which forms north eastern corner of Brickfields Equestrian Centre complex.

Site is presently served and bounded to west and south by a public footpath system and presently comprises grazing land.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/14537D - stable block comprising eight stables, two store rooms and two tack rooms with access off public footpath system - refused April 2002 on grounds that access to application site, involving public footpath, was considered both unsatisfactory and inappropriate to serve the proposed development and would be likely to create nuisance to users of public footpath system and add to hazards of pedestrian traffic contrary to UDP policy.

TCP/14537E - stable block comprising eight stables, two store rooms and two tack rooms and including upgrading of footpath R40 to bridleway - refused December 2002 on grounds that access to application site utilising a public right of way was considered both unsatisfactory and inappropriate to serve the development and its associated increase in usage would be likely to create a nuisance to users of the public footpath system and adding to hazards of pedestrian traffic contrary to policy TR7 and C24c.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

In terms of size and siting proposed stable block is identical in respect of these issues to previous submissions refused in April and December 2002.

Stable block measures some 22.75 metres length by 9.75 metres width having height to ridge of some 5 metres. The building will comprise two store rooms, two tack rooms and eight stable units served off central corridor with building constructed in dark stained horizontal cladding under plastic coated steel clad roof. Building has north south orientation and will be located close to public footpath R40/41 and a minimum distance of some 15 metres to nearest residential curtilage. Application now submitted on basis of providing different access arrangements in order to service new stable block.

Briefly amended access arrangement involves construction of three metre wide trackway which runs parallel to existing public right of way for a distance of some 140 metres which connects at the southern end to the existing internal trackway system to Brickfields and at the northern end necessitates crossing over public right of way into paddock area where stable block is proposed to be sited.

Newly formed trackway would be bounded by post and wire fence comprise earth surface and require construction of two sets of gates either side of public footpath. In support of application agent states that proposal does not necessitate use of stretches of adjoining public footpaths only crossing at right angles at one of them at access point into field. Agent now considers proposal acceptable as previous refusal related to impact of development on possible use of footpath by vehicles and horses from stables which has now been overcome.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The following policies of UDP are considered relevant to this application:

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements. Policy allows for development outside defined settlements connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities and also recreation and sports activities appropriate to countryside and appropriate small scale rural tourism development.

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

D1 - Standards of Design.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C23 - Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside. Policy allows for such structures for the keeping of horses for recreational purposes and advises such development will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harming visual amenity of countryside for occupiers of adjoining land or buildings, they are of a scale, design and construction appropriate for the location and are of timber construction and conditions and/or legal agreements are applied to prevent incremental development, such as feed stores, tack rooms, mobile field shelters, caravans or similar structures.

C24 - Commercial Riding Establishments. Applications for new commercial riding establishments and extensions to existing premises will be approved where it involves the reuse of an existing farm complex, minimises any impact on adjoining residential occupiers, will not result in unacceptable conflict between riders and vehicles on nearby road network and they have direct access to the rights of way network.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Environmental Health Officer commented on previous application and recommended the imposition of conditions relating to prohibition of burning of manure and stable waste on site together with storage of material on site.

In respect of previous application Environment Agency raised no objection in principle.

Rights of Way Officer has visited the site and expressed a number of concerns.

1. Construction of crossing over footpath R40/41 would entail the breaching of the hedge banks either side of the footpath. These are undoubtedly ancient and I suggest the Council's Senior Countryside Officer be asked to comment on this issue. Within the affected section the following species are present, elm, hawthorn, field maple, hazel and willow. The elm is dying and therefore the value of other trees has extra importance.

2. The difference in levels between the surface of the footpath and that of the field to the south is about 1.5 metres. Access to the stables would therefore have to be ramped at this point with a batter on either side of the cutting. Therefore the section of hedge bank which would need to be removed is several metres wide.

3. The surface water run off from the field to the south of the footpath is into the north east corner, i.e. at the point where the ramp's cutting would need to be made. There is already a drain under the footpath at this point. There will be a tendency for surface water to funnel into the ramped access and discharge onto the footpath.

4. The driver of a vehicle approaching the stable block from the south will need to view at an acute angle over the right shoulder to see if anyone is approaching along the footpath from the south. Vehicles such as Land Rovers have opaque sides behind the driver and visibility at such an angle is impossible.

The Archaeological Officer regards hedgerows as being "important" using criteria relating to archaeology in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. The boundaries which are shown on early unpublished Ordnance Survey plans are recorded on the Sites and Monuments Records as Archaeological Sites. Hedgerow Regulations state that archaeological sites recorded on such a basis before the relevant date should be afforded protection by the Act.

County Archivist advises that using maps it has been possible to establish that lane with attendant hedgerows has been in existence since at least 1793 and this part of lane in map of 1862 appears to fall wholly within parish boundary of Binstead. However, the department does not have any body of estate maps which cover this area and therefore there is no documentary evidence available which would enable the hedge to be regarded as being of historic importance within criteria set out in Hedgerow Regulations.

Assistant Ecology Officer advises that hedgerows on either side of bridle way are important under wildlife criteria of Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Hedges are species rich containing an average of seven species per thirty metre stretch (in total ten different species in the hedge on the south side and nine on the north side) and they are set on prominent banks. There are reliable reports of dormice in these hedges (a protected species).

These hedgerows should be afforded protection as they are valuable ecological and landscape features. Area currently proposed is likely to lead to damage or loss of trees as well as hedgerow shrubs. If it were considered essential to breach this hedgerow to allow access to field it would be preferable if a different area could be used. There has already been some damage to the northern hedgerow further to the west of the crossing proposed and this would be less detrimental site for gate. If permission is granted to remove any section of hedge a thorough survey for dormice by a suitably qualified person must be undertaken and if dormice are present a DEFRA licence will be required before works can go ahead.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters have been received from the Ramblers Association with one letter objecting on grounds that buildings are outside development area, that building should be inside present farm boundary which is well defined with no justification for development on undeveloped grazing land away from main farm area. Building is also adjacent housing on north boundary, smell and flies associated with manure storage must be recognised. Second letter comments that new access track appears designed to allow vehicle and bridle access between new stables and existing internal tracks of establishment without conflicting with pedestrian use of right of way. It is hoped that there will be a positive condition requiring all bridle and vehicular traffic to use new track. Concern is raised over lack of restriction of access to right of way at northern end of new access track with possibility that installation of gate could result in users taking easier alternative right of way R40 or indeed that lack of knowledge of correct route would result in similar usage. Installation of fixed barriers are suggested and furthermore condition is suggested requiring vehicles connected with building of stables and new track to use new trackway only. It is also suggested that stables would harm visual amenity by intruding into overall aspect of locality contrary to policy C23 with development itself appearing to be too large in terms of scale. Reference is also made to policy C24 and it is suggested there will be considerable impact on nearby residential properties, particularly in respect of waste storage and treatment.

Twenty eight individual letters of objection have been received. The main points of objection summarised as follows:-

Proposal involves crossing existing right of way and a potential conflict and danger to footway users.

Inadequate access arrangements for emergency vehicles to service site.

Potential for parked vehicles in open countryside associated with use of stables.

Potential nuisance to nearby residents in respect of smell, rodent, fly problems.

Increased surface water run off and impact on nearest residential property.

Incremental development of the locality.

Potential damage to footpath.

Proximity of development to housing.

Loss of trees and need for tree protection.

Inappropriate location for this development.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Planning considerations again relate to appropriateness and development in rural location, its potential visual impact together with matters relating to means of access.

Policies within UDP allow for development outside defined settlements connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities, recreation and sport activity appropriate to the countryside, appropriate small scale rural tourism development and/or appropriate small scale development to create or sustain rural employment.

Additionally policy C23 advises that in respect of applications for stable and field shelters for recreational purposes such development will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harm to visual amenity, are of a small scale and are designed and constructed appropriately for location.

Policy C24 deals with extensions to existing commercial riding establishments which will be approved where they involve re-use of existing farm complex or group of farm buildings, minimising impact on adjoining residential occupiers, will not result in unacceptable conflict between riders and vehicles on nearby road network and have direct access to rights of way network.

Given previous decisions on this site, again it is considered there is no reasonable objection in principle to further provision of stable block in this location and as previously advised by Environmental Health Officer given distance to nearest residential property, provided appropriate conditions are attached to any consent it is not felt that building itself and associated uses will have any undue detrimental impact on amenities of nearest residential occupiers.

Main consideration therefore relates to means of access to application site, its appropriateness and potential conflict with other footpath users.

Application as revised clearly seeks to overcome potential conflict with users of public rights of way system given that newly constructed access way will run parallel to existing footpath for a distance of some 140 metres and only cross it at right angles at one point providing access into field which will contain stable block.

Whilst it is agreed that such an arrangement will reduce potential for conflict with footpath users the difference in land levels between the footpath and adjoining fields, use of two sets of gates will it is felt be difficult to construct and operate given the potential usage proposed and will still result in a level of conflict with users of the public footpath system. Additionally the construction of an access way running parallel to an existing footpath is somewhat contrived and gives an indication as to the associated access problems associated with developing this site in isolation from the existing riding complex. Furthermore the construction of an access way over this length will inevitably have some impact in terms of urbanising what is currently a relatively undeveloped rural location.

Proposal will also result in loss of sections of "important" hedgerow which has been identified as being species rich and within which may provide habitat for protected species. The introduction of new access points would also require substantial earthworks given fact that level of field to south of footway in some 1.5 metres above level of public footpath which is to be crossed. Given the proposal involves introduction of second access point into field there is considered to be insufficient justification for loss of these sections of hedgerow.

As with previous applications it is considered reasonable to assume that provision of eight stable units in this location will result in increased usage of newly formed access way given its relative remoteness, day to day usage of building together with essential deliveries which will inevitably involve vehicles which will increase potential for conflict between all users of public footpath system. Countryside Access Manager remains concerned in respect of breaching of ancient hedgerow, difference in levels, surface water run off and potential danger to footpath users from lack of visibility particularly for vehicles crossing public right of way. Footway system in locality is generally well used and I again consider that proposed development will inevitably increase potential danger to users of rights of way creating both a nuisance and highway hazards to pedestrian traffic. I therefore consider proposal is contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy which firstly seeks to ensure development provides for safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, cyclists and pedestrians whilst maintaining safety of all road users and secondly resulting in unjustifiable loss of sections of an important hedgerow.

Members may recall that late letter received from agent was reported at meeting. Briefly letter from agent notes that report mentions reasons for refusal relating to possible conflicts with crossing a public right of way and adverse effect on important hedgerow. Discussions with Council's Countryside Manager before application was submitted was based on agreement that access as shown on application in this position would overcome previous objections. He also notes the question of hedgerow as only being raised at late stage and was not discussed at any stage in processing of application. He requested that application be deferred in order that an investigation could be undertaken in respect of possible relocation of access point where hedge is already damaged and where compromise solution may be achieved. The letter formally requested that Members defer application.

Recommendation remains unchanged.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that access to the site is considered to be inappropriate, contrary to policies of Unitary Development Plan and therefore represents a fundamental planning objection to proposal and application is recommended accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The access to the application site, crossing a public right of way, is considered both unsatisfactory and inappropriate to serve the proposed development and the associated level of usage of the proposed access would be likely to create a nuisance to users of the public footpath system and add to the hazards of pedestrian traffic contrary to policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and C24c (Commercial Riding Facilities) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2

The development proposed would be likely to adversely affect an important hedgerow and any approval would be contrary to policy S6 (Be of a High Standard of Design) and Policy C13 (Hedgerows) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services