Agenda item - 18/01226/FUL - Use of existing building, incorporating caravan to form part of building, as rest/livestock husbandry and storage facility, including office, in association with existing agricultural and equine activities - Thornborough Farm, Redhill Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham, Worcestershire, B38 9EH - Mr K Moore

Agenda item

18/01226/FUL - Use of existing building, incorporating caravan to form part of building, as rest/livestock husbandry and storage facility, including office, in association with existing agricultural and equine activities - Thornborough Farm, Redhill Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham, Worcestershire, B38 9EH - Mr K Moore

Minutes:

Officers reported that two late representations had been received, one   objecting to the Application and one in support of the Application; both of which reiterated the comments already received.

 

Officers further reported that the Application was seeking retrospective permission for the retention and use of a detached single storey building for as rest, livestock husbandry and storage facility, including an office.  The building was sited on a tennis court formerly part of the curtilage of the adjoining property.

 

Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor C. A. Hotham, Ward Member.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. R. Smith (speaking on behalf of Mr. R. Sambhi), addressed the Committee objecting to the Application.  

 

With the agreement of the Chairman, the Council’s Legal Adviser read out a statement from Councillor C. A. Hotham, Ward Member, who had been unable to attend the meeting. 

 

The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for approval.  

 

Officers further clarified that no enforcement notices had been issued. A planning enforcement investigation into an alleged unauthorised dwelling was conducted and that no evidence was found which corroborated those claims.

 

Members were informed that the Council had commissioned a report from its agricultural consultant, who having reviewed the Application had raised no objection to the proposal.

 

Members sought clarification from Officers as to the terms of the suitable and satisfactory legal mechanism.  Officers explained that a suitable and satisfactory legal mechanism to ensure that the building was not capable of being sold separately from the land, would not prevent or preclude the Applicant from submitting further planning applications.  Each application was considered on its own merits.

 

With the agreement of the Chairman, the Council’s Legal Adviser further informed the Committee that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – Policy Tests stated that planning obligations (s106 agreements) should only be used where it was not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.

 

In response to a query from Members, Officers commented that they were unsure as to where the lambing shed was located on the site plan.

 

Members gave further consideration to the proposed Application and whilst they agreed that there was nothing wrong with seeking retrospective planning permission; the Committee were of the view that the development was not solely for agricultural use, had a greater impact upon the openness than the hardstanding which preceded it, and was therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Furthermore the building was not designed for its proposed purpose and there were no overriding reasons which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness.

 

Members were therefore minded to refuse the Application.

 

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for the following reason:

 

The development was not used solely for agricultural purposes, and was also proposed to serve an equestrian enterprise which was an outdoor recreational use, but was not designed for either purpose. Albeit constructed on previously developed land, comprising a hard surfaced tennis court, previously severed from the former curtilage of an adjacent dwellinghouse, the application must satisfy the caveats that it preserves the openness of the Green Belt, and would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. The resultant development comprised of a building (incorporating a caravan) and evidently had a significantly greater material impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the existing hardstanding, and consequently comprises inappropriate development.

 

Neither the building or incorporated caravan were designed to meet the functional requirements of the agricultural or equestrian enterprise for which retrospective permission was sought. The development exceeds what was reasonably required for an operation of this scale and were commensurate with that of domestic accommodation.

 

The National Planning Policy Framework states that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Committee considers that no very special circumstances exist because the reasons advanced in support of the proposal do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness arising from the failure of the proposal to preserve its openness or the other harm identified.

 

Accordingly, the development was contrary to Policies BDP4, BDP15 and BDP19 of the Bromsgrove District Plan and Paragraphs 134(c) 143, 144, 145, 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Supporting documents: