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.  The application was deferred at the meeting on 20th January, 2006 for a site inspection.

Ward: Hampton Court

The Development Control Manager presented the report of the Head of Planning Services.  At the previous meeting of the Committee, consideration of the application had been deferred for a site inspection which had been carried out on 28th February, 2006.  The report had been updated to include further correspondence and the Development Control Manager said that additional letters had been received but that they did not raise any further planning issues.  The view of the Head of Planning Services was that the application did not constitute farm diversification and that there would be an adverse impact on an area of previously undeveloped open countryside.  He was satisfied that the proposal was contrary to the policies contained within the Leominster District Local Plan and the Hereford and Worcester County Structure Plan. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Price (the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor RM Manning 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 his van and had found this to be increasingly difficult to do 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 the application site was in ideal situation to help the applicant to modestly expand and move forward.  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 Leominster District Local Plan A2D(v), A35(3) and paragraph 5.35, and the Deposit Draft Unitary development Plan E11, E12, and H8 to support it. He also took the view that it was an established business and that the development would be in line with Government guidance on farm diversification.  He noted that there were some concerns about the prominent location of the proposal but felt 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 officers together with an appropriate requirement that all development was tied to the business.

The Chairman expressed the view that although the application was for a worthwhile enterprise, the application site was in the wrong location and constituted accommodation and a commercial enterprise in the open countryside.  It needed to be in an alternative established location.  The Director of Environment emphasised that consideration of applications needed to be made on their planning merits based on the Council's policies and that making exceptions such as this application would only serve to undermine those policies.Councillor Mrs Robertson commented on the growth of equine activity in the County with more bridleways being provided and an increase in horse riding holidays and commended the application.  Councillor BF Ashton felt that the proposal was a commendable concept but in the wrong location and in breach of significant planning policies.  The site was situated in an isolated location some distance along a narrow lane and access would prove to be difficult for horseboxes and lorries.  There were other farriers in the area and the role of mobile farriers was well established in the rural community. He felt that greater effort was required on the part of the applicant to find a more suitable location.  The Legal Practice Manager and the Development Control Manager said that reference had been made to another site nearby which had been granted permission under delegated powers.  This was in relation to an established building but in the case of the application before the Committee the proposal was in the open countryside not part of an existing enterprise.  Councillor Mrs JE Pemberton had some concerns about the amount of space allocated to the objectors compared to the supporters in the report and the comments made about the local ward member and support from DEFRA.  Several Members had concerns about the isolated nature of the site and the difficult roads that would have to be traversed by those transporting horses to the site.  Councillor Mrs JA Hyde said that this was a fact of life for those living and working in rural areas.

Having given detailed consideration to all the facts relating to the application, the Committee decided that notwithstanding the advice of officers, it should be approved.

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved in consultation with the Local Ward Member subject to any conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, including landscaping, highways and environmental health and subject to the development being tied to the business, and that the application for approval of reserved matters be submitted to the Committee.