Agenda item

Proposal Description: Item 9: The Erection of a Barn, Stable Block and Extension of Hardstanding (Amended Plans).

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out the following matters:

(i)             Comments received from the Drainage Engineer on 7 November 2024 raising no objection, subject to a standard drainage condition being imposed.

(ii)            An additional condition 9 as follows:

          Condition 9

          Detailed proposals for the disposal of surface water shall be submitted           to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the       commencement of the development hereby permitted. The       development shall not be occupied until the approved measures have           been implemented.

          Reason: To ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere, that     opportunities to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding within the   District are addressed and that wastewater infrastructure to service     new development is provided as required by Policy CP17 of the Local      Plan Part 1 - Joint Core Strategy Adopted March 2013.

(iii)       An amended version of the proposed site layout plan was uploaded on 7 November 2024 (Drawing Reference C9_24_21_PL_100_A). The only change showing the hedgerow planting (secured through condition 3 of consent 23/01775/FUL and now in place).

During public participation, Councillor Jonathan Carkeet (Curdridge Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Claire Carvalho (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Sudhakar Achwal spoke as Ward Member. In summary, Councillor Achwal raised the following points:

·       The application site previously formed part of a larger 4-hectare site. Planning permission was granted earlier this year (or possibly late last year) for a barn to provide storage for machinery and to graze one horse.

·       The latest application seeks to add stables and other buildings for a further three horses. The British Horse Society recommends a ratio of one horse per 4 to 6 hectares. The site was approximately 0.9 hectares, hence a maximum of two horses could be accommodated on this site.

·       Councillor Achwal expressed concern that the 4-hectare farmland was slowly being turned into an alternate use, which was not in accordance with Winchester City Council's equestrian development policy DM12.

·       He argued that the buildings are out of proportion and would have a detrimental impact on the existing landscape, which was not in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       In conclusion, he urged the committee to refuse the application which he stated was contrary to policies CP20-1 and MTRA4.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

          RESOLVED:

                     The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons:

(i)             Contrary to Policy DM12 – The siting of an additional equestrian enterprise and the appearance and intensification as a result, in respect of cumulative impact in the context of the area, the proposal would therefore fail to respect and minimise the visual impact in the location. The application failed to adhere to Criterion 3: should not involve the erection of new buildings, such as hardstanding’s that could be isolated or scattered; and Criterion 4: does not harm the character of the area by reason of cumulative impact when considered with other similar enterprises in the area. The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment