Retrospective application for change of use on part of land associated with Losito Stud from agricultural to equine use, retrospective application for change of use from agricultural barn to stables.

The application could not be determined by the committee as the applicant had lodged an appeal based on non-determination. The committee debated the application and would have been minded not to support the case officer’s recommendation.

The Team Leader - Enforcement gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He advised the Committee that an appeal had been lodged on the basis of non determination and therefore the application could not be determined. It was noted that the Committee could delegate a decision to approve the application subject to the withdrawal of the appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Miss Harris, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JG Jarvis, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including

·         The application site fell within the neighbouring ward, Llangarron.

·         At paragraph 6.7 the report states that the land on the site that did not fall within the application was used solely for grazing, however there were jumps erected in the fields.

·         It was understood that the family had erected the barn on the site.

·         There was a question mark locally as to whether the application site was for equine or agricultural use.

·         It would be best for the inspector to make a decision on the usage as a stud usage would not require permission.

·         The two neighbouring Parish Councils had concerns in respect of the application.

·         The UDP was the key policy in determining the application and the site was outside of the settlement boundary as detailed in that policy.

·         The application should be refused.

The debate was opened with members speaking in support of the application. It was noted that the agricultural building was already on the site when it came into the applicant’s ownership. The issue of the horse jumps in the grazing area was also discussed with it being considered that studs and mares on the site would still need to be exercised and there was therefore a need for the wooden jumps. The Transport Managers comments were noted as well as the Ross Ramblers, who did not object to the application. In summing up it was felt that the proposed application would not be a blot on the landscape but would in fact enable an equine business to function properly.

In response to a question in response to a question regarding the building on the site, the Team Leader - Enforcement advised the Committee that it was already on the site when the land was gifted to the applicant by her family.

Other members had a different opinion in respect of the application and felt that it could not be supported. The comments of the two nearby Parish Councils were noted and concerns were expressed in respect of the highways issues. Members felt that the retrospective nature of the application was regrettable although they noted that this was not a material planning consideration. Members also discussed the footpath that ran across the site; they were of the opinion that the footpath should be protected through appropriate conditions. Some concern was expressed in respect of the enforcement of any proposed conditions due to the ongoing enforcement issues on the site.

It was noted that the land had been gifted to the applicant, Members were concerned that the land could easily be gifted back to the family after benefitting from planning permission.

The Team Leader - Enforcement addressed the Committee in respect of the enforcement issues on the site. He advised that the applicant had failed to comply with an enforcement notice and that this was the subject of an appeal which had now been heard, he added that if the application was approved it would have an impact on the enforcement notice.

In response to a matter raised by the Committee, the Team Leader - Enforcement advised that there was a dwelling in the vicinity of the application site which was currently on the market. It was felt that this could meet any functional need for a dwelling on the site.

Councillor JG Jarvis was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The application would have more local support had the correct process been followed.

·         The dwelling opposite the site met the functional need.

·         The applicant has not followed the correct process and a number of planning rules appear to have been ignored.

·         The planning process appears to have been manipulated from the outset.

The Chairman requested that the Committee vote on the officer’s recommendation in order to indicate to officers how they would have been minded to determine the application had they been able to.

Members indicated that they would not have supported the officer’s recommendation to approve the application. The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) asked for clarification in respect of the reasons for not supporting the recommendation. The Locum Lawyer advised that due to the appeal which had been lodged the jurisdiction in respect of a decision had been passed to the Secretary of State. It was his opinion that the decision was now academic and members did not need to give reasons.

RESOLVED

The application could not be determined by the committee as the applicant had lodged an appeal based on non-determination. The committee debated the application and would have been minded to not support the case officer’s recommendation.