To consider a planning application which has been referred to the Committee by the Head of Planning Services because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve it, contrary to the Council's Planning Policies and officer recommendations.

Ward: Hampton Court

The Development Control Manager said that the application was submitted to the  the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 4th January 2006 when it was recommended for refusal.  Notwithstanding the recommendation the Sub-Committee was minded to approve outline planning permission for this development.  The view of the Head of Planning Services was that the application did not constitute a farm diversification venture and should therefore not be considered under the exceptions in Planning Policy S7.  He also felt that the proposed location of the business and dwellings was such that there would be considerable adverse impact on an area of previously undeveloped open countryside.  The evidence provided by the applicant did not meet the criteria for an exception to be made to the adopted planning policies and he was satisfied that the proposal was contrary to the operative development plan policies of the Leominster District Local Plan and the Hereford and Worcester County Structure Plan. 

The receipt of a letter and photographs frpm the objector and a letter from DEFRA was reported.  The Development Control Manager said that DEFRA reqired more information from the applicants and that its letter did not support or reject the proposal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Phillips (objector) spoke against the application and Mr. Price (applicant) spoke in favour.

Councillor KG Grumbley, the Local Ward Member, said that the applicant required accommodation and facilities to undertake his work as a farrier and to train an apprentice.  The applicant had been using a building on his father’s farm and also had to operate from the back of his van for his work but had found this to be increasingly difficult and no longer practicable.  He needed proper facilities to deal with difficult horses and to locate a forge. He also needed accommodation for himself and his apprentice and Councillor Grumbley felt that the application site was in ideal situation to help the applicant to modestly expand and move forward.  He pointed out that there was a national shortage of farriers and that Holme Lacy College was one of only four within the Country which provided courses for them.  He felt that the proposal was in keeping with national planning legislation and guidance for agricultural diversification and that there was scope within the Council’s planning policies E12, H8, A2D and A35 to support it. He also took the view that it was an established business and that the development would be in line with the Governments White Paper on farm diversification.  The equine industry was on the decline in this area and he felt that animal welfare was paramount and that this kind of development would help to maintain jobs and income in the countryside.  He noted that there were some concerns about the prominent location of the proposal but felt that it was a relatively modest development and that there was sufficient scope within the site for the buildings to be carefully orientated with suitable landscaping to lessen their visual impact.  He pointed out that permission had recently been granted for a stable block within the area which was in a much more prominent location.  He said that this was an outline application and that various aspects could be agreed and conditions established prior to a full application, along with the conditions required by the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards and an appropriate requirement that all development was tied to the business.

On the suggestion of the Chairman the Committee decided that there was merit in holding a site inspection because a number of Committee Members would be unfamiliar with the site.

RESOLVED:            That consideration of the application be deferred for a site inspection on the following grounds:

(a)   the character or appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration;

(b)   a judgement is required on visual impact; and

(c)  the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.