Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out a retrospective planning application for the retention of single storey equestrian storage barn.

 

Background

 

The application had been withdrawn from the Development Management Committee meeting held in January 2017 as the applicant had submitted a late representation to the Council following publication of the Officer’s report. 

 

The applicant had instructed JSP Management Ltd to comment on the Independent Appraisal undertaken on behalf of the Council by KWA Architects and Planning Consultants.  Within that report they summarised that there was a defined need for a storage barn separate from the stables.  In that report they outlined the justification for a separate storage barn and provided an analysis of incorporating the storage area into the existing stable block.

 

With regard to the need for a separate storage barn the applicant’s report outlined that KWA Architects agreed that a separate storage barn would be a good addition to any equine yard, and confirmed the content of in the original report.  The report prepared by KWA Architects outlined that it was widely accepted that stable yards did create an increased fire risk and that the storage of hay, bedding and machinery all created potential fire hazards.  Best practice was to provide a separate building for the storage of hay, bedding and machinery wherever possible, particularly when designing a new equestrian yard.  The report also stated that; -

           

‘Whilst it is functionally preferable to have a separate storage Barn appropriate management processes and fire safety systems can be implemented on yards which have internal storage to reduce the fire risk.  We therefore cannot concur with JSP’s claim that it is ‘never’ acceptable to have internal storage but it is acknowledged that it is functionally preferable’.

 

The applicant’s report prepared by JSP made reference to stables on KWA Architect’s website which included separate buildings for storage.  As these were at different sites outside the Borough full details had not been provided and no weight could be attached to this statement.

 

With regard to the section of the applicant’s report prepared by JSP which provided an analysis of incorporating the storage area into the existing stable block, reference was made to the fact that KWA Architects had not visited Warrenwood Manor.  It was noted that whilst KWA Architects had not visited the site they were employed by the Council to provide an independent appraisal of their supporting information on the specific equestrian considerations.  KWA Architects had been instructed to advise whether or not there was actually a need for the barn in addition to the existing stables on the site.  They had been provided with the relevant information and plans concerning the site and were able to make a clear judgement on the supporting information.

 

The report, prepared by KWA Architects, outlined that the stable block had been designed and built with significant storage.  The report also outlined that even though the stable block did not currently provide suitable access to the first floor storage areas for storing hay and bedding, there was more than sufficient space provided within the building as a whole to meet the storage and functional needs for the proper management of 16 horses.  The report outlined that airflow may well have been an issue for the first floor hay storage areas however this would not prevent these areas of the building from being used for alternative purposes such as an office, tackroom etc. to allow the floor space on the ground floor to be used more productively.  It outlined that the building could accommodate simple internal remodelling to provide more than sufficient space internally for the required storage without further encroaching into the Green Belt. 

 

The applicant’s report prepared by JSP outlined that the alternatives were not viable on a practical and costs basis.  In this instance, the cost was not a material planning consideration.  The applicant had built the storage barn without the appropriate planning permission and at his own risk.  It was apparent that there were alternative options that were available to the applicant to accommodate the required equipment and hay within the existing stable block.

 

The report prepared by KWA Architects provided one example of remodelling only.  KWA Architects considered that there were many ways in which the building could be remodelled to meet the storage requirements on site.  Therefore whilst the applicant critiques the suggestion made this was only one option available to the applicant and the onus would be for the applicant to remodel the building to provide a situation that would work for him. 

 

The first floor of the building included two large hay stores in the stable block which the applicant explained could not be accessed.  This was due to the lack of appropriate openings and a mechanical load lifter was required to manoeuvre hay to these areas.  Whilst the report prepared by KWA Architects accepts this claim, the applicant’s report prepared by JSP outlined that fire risk was a real threat and putting hay in an enclosed space with minimal airflow was not advisable.  Nevertheless, condition 20 of planning permission S6/2012/2656/S73B, which was for ‘Time extension of planning permission S6/2009/2574/FP (Erection of new dwelling, three bay garage block, garden store together with retention and alteration of the existing stables, landscaping and all other ancillary works.  Following demolition of partially constructed dwelling, adjoining stables and garage blocks) sought to have a first floor plan submitted.  That condition was also placed on the original application, reference S6/2009/2574/FP, where that Officer’s report outlined that the finished stable block would provide 16 horse boxes, feed and hay store, tack rooms and rest rooms.  The submitted Drawing 703/100 by the applicant to comply with Condition 20 of planning permission S6/2012/2656/S73B on the 3 June 2013 showed the first floor of the stable building as built.  The floor plan included two large hay stores within the first floor of the stable block. 

 

It therefore seemed extremely surprising that the applicant was now stating that what was designed, submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval and actually built, was now not appropriate as there was no appropriate access or indeed now considered that there was a real potential of fire risk.  Subsequently, it strongly suggested that the vast majority of the first floor of the stable block had no functional use. 

 

The applicant’s report prepared by JSP outlined that the storage space also reduced the size of the existing stables and that they were all currently used.  In this instance, KWA Architect’s report did not suggest reducing the number of stables.  It outlined that certain stables could be remodelled to provide two reasonably sized stables. 

 

The applicant’s report prepared by JSP made reference to other equine yards which included separate buildings for storage.  Again those were at different sites where the full details had not been provided.  No weight could therefore be attached to this statement.

 

The applicant provided the ground floor plans of the stable block as built, which were different to those granted planning permission and which the Council had on file.  Whilst there were differences to the internal layout, the footprint of the building had not altered and the first floor space remains as previously granted.  Accordingly the findings in the report prepared by KWA Architects remain.

 

A supporting letter from the applicant, outlined that in the field adjacent to the site consent for a similar size building had been granted.  No information had been provided of the exact address of that site and therefore no comment could be made by Officers.  In any event, every site was assessed on its own individual merits and it was unlikely that this would provide any support in relation to the proposal.

 

In conclusion, Officers considered that the proposed storage barn would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and thus harmful to it, where additional harm was caused to the openness, the purposes and the visual amenity of the Green Belt.  There are no other considerations apparent that would weigh in favour of the scheme which cumulatively or individually would outweigh the harm identified and warrant very special circumstances. 

 

Phil Koscien (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

Sarah Ingram (Objector) spoke against the application.

 

Members of the Committee made the following comments during the discussion which ensued:-

 

•      There were significant health and safety issues with the storage of hay and fuel based machinery together with the horses to warrant a separate storage building.

•      The storage of hay in the hayloft constituted a fire hazard in the existing stables due to the large amount of hay needed for the number of horses being stabled there currently. 

•      The health and safety issues led to very special circumstances for an additional storage building.

•      The unauthorised barn was not noticeable either from the road or from the yard within.  The impact on the Green Belt was negligible.

•      The storage barn did not affect the openness of the Green Belt.

•      Improved landscaping could be used to screen the storage barn.

•      The intention to use the hayloft to store hay bales had been indicated in the original planning application for the existing stables and had been acceptable by the applicant.  However the applicant was now stating that the hay bales needed to be in a separate hay storage area.  No reason had been given for this and there had been no change in the size of the stables.

•      An additional building in the Green Belt was not necessary as the existing stables were very large and had sufficient capacity to store the necessary amount of hay for the 16 horses currently stabled.

 

It was moved by Councillor F.Thomson, seconded by Council P.Shah and lost, 7 voted for and 8 against, that the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the retrospective application for the retention of single storey equestrian storage barn be agreed.

 

It was then moved by Councillor P.Zukowskyj, seconded by Councillor D.Bennett and

 

RESOLVED:

(8 voting for, 7 against)

 

That planning permission for application 6/2016/1953/FULL, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for refusal be approved with the following conditions:

 

1.      The development hereby permitted shall not be used other than for a storage barn in association with the equestrian stable block on the site. 

 

REASON: In the interests of the character and amenity of the area in accordance with Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan and impact on the Green Belt in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

2.      Within 3 months of this decision, full details on a suitably scaled plan of soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

 

The landscaping details to be submitted shall include:

 

(f)        existing trees, hedges or other soft features to be retained

 

(g)       planting plans, including specifications of species, sizes, planting centres, number and percentage mix, and details of seeding or turfing

 

(h)       details of planting or features to be provided to enhance the value of the development for biodiversity and wildlife

 

REASON:   The landscaping of this site is required in order to protect and enhance the existing visual character of the area and to reduce the visual and environmental impacts of the development hereby permitted in accordance with Policies GBSP2, D2 and D8 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.

 

3.         All agreed landscaping comprised in the above details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following approval: and any plants which within a period of 5 years from first planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.  All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the guidance contained in British Standards 8545: 2014.

 

REASON: To ensure proper implementation of the agreed landscape details in the interest of the amenity value of the development in accordance with Policies GBSP2, D2 and D8 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.

 

Positive and Proactive Statement

 

The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt where there is additional harm caused to the openness, the purposes of the Green Belt and the visual amenity of the Green belt.  However the case put forward by the applicant comprising the health and safety requirement to have hay stored separately to where horses are stabled is considered to provide the very special circumstances necessary to overcome that harm.