12
PART 1
EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
Applications to be determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority
PS.358/2012 19 January 2012 SECTION 1 – SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Item No.: 01 The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
PROPOSAL SITING OF A TEMPORARY TIMBER DWELLING FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS LOCATION: Northfield Stables, Soldridge Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5JF REFERENCE : 39646/017 PARISH: Medstead APPLICANT: MA Sports Horses CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 21 October 2011 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 15 November 2011 COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr M C Johnson MBE/ Cllr P A Seward SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL
This application is included on the agenda at the discretion of the Head of Planning Services.
13 Site and Development
Northfield Stables is on the north side of Soldridge Road, a short distance to the west of South Town Road. There is a broken hedge line along the western side of the track and the land is adjoined by residential properties on several boundaries. Permission was granted in 2005 under reference 39646/001 for the change of use of the land to equestrian and the erection of stables. This permission did not prevent the site being used for commercial equestrian purposes.
Permission was subsequently granted for a schooling arena and an open bay hay barn, under reference 39646/003 (see history below). More recently, permission was granted for additional commercial stables, including a store room and tack room, on the basis that stables granted under an earlier permission, on land to the east of Northfield Stables, were not to be constructed.
This proposal follows a recent refusal, which was also dismissed at appeal for a detached occupational dwelling for a temporary period of three years. This scheme is identical in terms of design and siting, but additional information has been submitted to try to address the reasons for refusal regarding the financial viability of the business, the need for on-site supervision and alternative suitable available dwellings within the locality.
The dwelling would be a single-storey timber construction approximately 30 metres to the rear of the main stable building. The dwelling would measure 11.5 metres by 8.5 metres with a ridge height of 4 metres and eaves of 2.5 metres. A covered terrace would be constructed on the north-west elevation.
Relevant Planning History
Planning permission was originally granted for equestrian use of the site in 2005. At that time, the application (39646/001) was considered to comply with the criteria within Policy ENV11 of the Local Plan: First Review (a policy very similar to Policy C12 in the current Local Plan). That policy allowed for equestrian uses in the countryside (commercial or otherwise) subject to certain criteria. It was concluded by officers and the planning committee that the proposal adequately satisfied the criteria within the policy and permission was granted. The site has legitimately operated as commercial stabling and a number of permissions have been subsequently granted that have broadened the range of facilities on the site.
39646 - Block of six stables, feed/tack room and change of use from agricultural land to equestrian use - Refused 2005 39646/001 - Stable block and change of use of land to equestrian use - Permission 2005 39646/003 - Hay barn, schooling area and relief of Condition 15 attached to permission to allow the parking of associated vehicles and trailers on site - Permission 2008 39646/006 - Stable block on equestrian land - Permission 2008 (land to the east of Northfield Stables) 39646/007 - Additional stable, office and horse walking machinery - Refused 2008
14 39646/008 - Variation of Condition 9 (manure storage location) of 39646/001 - Permission 2008. 39646/009 - Installation of a sewage treatment plant - 2009 39646/010 - 36 foot hydraulic four bay horse walker (occupying 105 m²) and variation of conditions 6 and 8 and removal of Condition 7 of 39646/003 - Permission 2009. 39646/013 - Extension to stables to include foaling boxes, tack room, tool store, stable and corner box - Permission 2009 39646/014 - Siting of a temporary timber dwelling for a period of three years - Refused in 2010 for the following reasons;
1) The proposal comprises an intrusion of residential development in this rural area beyond the nucleus of the settlement, for which there is no overriding justification and which, if permitted, would further erode the visual amenity and rural character of the locality contrary to advice contained within PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and Policies GS1, GS3 and H14 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
2) The proposal involves the erection of a dwelling in the countryside beyond any area identified in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review for further development for which no overriding justification has been made on grounds of agricultural/rural enterprise need; the proposal would therefore be contrary to the Policies outlined in the above reason.
The subsequent appeal was dismissed. The primary concerns of the Inspector were that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the functional need could not be fulfilled by other suitable accommodation within the area and that there was functional need to reside on the site. The inspector was also concerned that inadequate information had been submitted to demonstrate the long term future of the business.
Development Plan Policies and Proposals
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review
GS1 - Sustainable Development GS3 - Protecting the Countryside HE1 - Design C12 - Equestrian Uses C13 - Rural Diversification T9 - Highway Issues - Access T12 - Parking Standards H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries E1 - Conservation of Energy E2 - Renewable Energy
15 Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance
Village Design Statement - Medstead - A Vision for the Future - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.
Medstead Parish Plan 2008 PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments
Bruton Knowles - concludes; Taking into account the evidence submitted, it is our opinion that the requirements of the criteria set out in Annex A of PPS7 for a temporary dwelling for an agricultural (equestrian) worker have not all been met by the application as submitted.
The County Land Agent - concludes; Taking into account the nature and the scale of the equestrian enterprise carried out and proposed I am of the opinion that there is a functional need to be readily available at most times in order to ensure that essential levels of husbandry, welfare, security and supervision of livestock are provided. I feel that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis now reinforced by the further financial information and Business Plan which have been provided in the current application, but acknowledge that the business is still at a relatively early stage.
Principal Landscape Officer - The proposed development lies on a site outside the Settlement boundary but adjacent to existing residential properties. It is well defined by native hedgerows and so the visual impact of the proposed temporary dwelling should be contained. However it should be noted that until relatively recently the site was originally an open pasture which formed an attractive rural backcloth to the adjacent properties. This character has now significantly changed with the progressive development of new equestrian facilities on this site. This latest proposal represents the culmination of this transformation.
County Highways Engineer - No objection subject to conditions.
Planning Policy - The proposed temporary dwelling lies outside the settlement policy boundary for Medstead. Policy H14 ‘Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries’ of the Local Plan is relevant. The proposal will need to satisfy the criteria of the Policy. Paragraph 3.65 of Policy C12 is also relevant.
County Ecologist - No objection.
Environmental Health (contaminated land) - No objection, subject to conditions.
Medstead Parish Council - Objects.
Siting of a temporary timber dwelling for a period of 3 years at Northfield Stables, Soldridge Rd. GU345JF (39646/017/21OCT)
16 It was felt that our approach should be in three ways: a) The application is almost identical to the previous one, refused on Appeal, so we ought to consider the reasons for refusal and have they been overcome?
The Parish Council is still concerned that the request for a residence is in an area outside the SPB and the risk that any approval would set by precedent. We know precedent is not a planning consideration but are not aware of many instances when it has not been used successfully to obtain permission.
The reason the Appeal failed are quoted as:
Insufficient detail to demonstrate clearly that the enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis, specifically (i) how to project increase in recuperation income and (ii) the cost of acquiring and erecting the proposed temporary building.
Insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the functionable need for adequate supervision could not be achieved through modern technology Insufficient evidence to demonstrate the functional need could not be fulfilled by other existing accommodation in the vicinity.
Whilst the Parish Council do not have fully qualified persons to quantify the documentation submitted regarding turnover, profit and the like the profit to date does not reflect the ability to show this project as viable. That is assuming the figures have been substantiated and submitted to HMRC – not recorded on the paperwork. A member of the public present at our meeting confirmed he did not see evidence of sustainability either.
Whilst there is evidence that referrals might be made there is no guarantee and therefore the paperwork is speculation at best and the Appeal confirmed that inadequate depth of consideration had been used. The cost of acquiring and constructing is not built into these figures and we have grave concerns that the anticipated cost with the sort of depreciation likely is not built in either.
Our major concern is the facility in total is in the wrong place but this is a means to an end to justify its existence and then to argue that the dwelling once established creates the necessary precedent to have it replace with a permanent dwelling thus circumventing the current Policy for development outside the settlement policy boundary.
We would also question that if the need is temporary what happens in three years time? We also question why the need is for a two bedroomed dwelling apart from the fact that it creates a larger footprint. Its position is governed, according to the documents, by the proximity of the Sewage system and at the time we questioned the size of the system so it was obvious that further development would be added to it.
17 When this site was acquired it was known to be outside the settlement policy boundary so if there was a requirement to have accommodation then the site was not there for the purpose of the applicant namely – his need to reside.
It is obvious that the surrounding area property is well in excess of the current profit either to buy or lease and so evidence of use of modern technology is almost a non starter but this would have been known from day one. If it is therefore in the wrong place this does not provide an assumption that the Policy will be changed as a result. There are many families in the vicinity with children who would wish to remain in the vicinity and many have sought permission to use part of their large gardens to build them a dwelling. This has not been possible and we so no reason why the circumstances for this project should be any different.
Modern technology has not been fully investigated and local advise that no restrictions on its ability appear to work in this area are evident. Our research has shown that whilst this is an expensive area to live there is property available circa £150K/£300K but see further comment below.
The Inspector’s reasons for refusal have therefore not been met and we feel this is sufficient reason for refusal. b) Equine comments – Northfield Stables is currently providing standard facilities for showjumping/dressage horses which are no different to most livery stables. Recuperation stables might also include hydrotherapy, solarium, electrotherapies and physio. Unless these are provided it is doubtful that top class horses would use this facility.
Current renting facility for breeding horses could be lost as property and land is up for sale. There is nothing in the application to satisfy us that the facility will be used other than possible use. If it is not used will the residence be removed? Unlikely.
The only detail for recuperation requirements are ‘box rest for 2 weeks after surgery. Then two weeks box rest/hand walking, then possible small paddock turnout’. None of this states or implies a requirement for round the clock supervision. (It is actually routine treatment following most leg / tendon / ligament injuries)
Questionnaire – For a number of reasons good work by the applicant has been invalidated by some basic omissions. No indication of relationship to the applicant (family, pupil, independent professional) is evident. Are they local enough to want to use this facility? No firm evidence of the sort we would need to substantiate overriding the existing Appeal Inspector. c) The building proposal itself:
The applicant is looking to be on site 24 hours a day if necessary and we believe this has been the long term intention. The proposal would appear to be cheaper than renting but we would question this. The applicant is stating costs circa £65K but we find this hard to quantify and with link up costs for sewage, water etc could be considerably higher.
18 If at the end of 3 years it is not a proven success he would need to dismantle and sell and would be very lucky to get half his outlay back. If on the other hand he made a success would it be satisfactory to the Planning Authority to allow the wooden building to become a permanent fixture? Unlikely so it would have to be dismantled and sold as above.
In his submission he includes an appendix E Appeal which under 12 ‘explains that if a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity on a newly created agricultural unit it should normally, for the first three years, be provided by a caravan’. In its broadest sense we could argue this is equine farming so why has this not been considered? The financial implications, buy cost and sell cost for a mobile/semi-mobile residence would seem more realistic.
Instead we have a request for a temporary timber dwelling which would necessitate full connections to all services. The proposal includes a lounge area bigger than many 4 bedroomed properties. It includes two bedrooms not one. The overall size is therefore more conducive to building up a footprint for future development use in our opinion.
The 7 planning tests in the ‘statement of support’ for policy H14 do not match up in three areas at least:
Test b) The availability of suitable buildings may have been investigated but not to our satisfaction and ability to find property. Test c) Where new buildings should be located. Test e) We believe this is over the minimum size required with two bedrooms and a large lounge and could be reduced.
In summing up the Chairman said our main points of contention were:
To ensure we are consistent in refusing permission for any development contrary to Policy H16 outside the SPB It is not conclusive that extra income will be generated The sustainability of the business is still questioned by many The Appeal reasons for refusal are not convincing for equestrian, building and financial reasons We cannot afford the risk of precedent at this time especially as it appears unnecessary.
Representations
Ten letters of objection have been received, raising the following concerns: a) new application fails to address the grounds for dismissing the previous appeal: b) there has been and is property available in close proximity, one property had a direct boundary to the field; c) the questionnaires completed by local horse owners and equine vets/professionals are of no consequence;
19 d) the potential referrals are just that; potential and should not be included in the business plan; e) the supporting statement contains continuous statements which, if acceptable, residential permission for every stable block in the land would have to be granted; f) the request for residential use is to allow the business to change to justify the residential use, as at present, the business as is, does not support the need for residential accommodation and should therefore be refused; g) the provision of a residence will not reduce vehicular movements as stated by the Highway Engineer; h) PPS7 states that a temporary dwelling for three years should normally be a caravan; i) at no point has commercial permission been given on the site; j) this is clearly a move for a permanent dwelling on the site; k) the proposal would increase traffic along the public footpath; l) the accounts do not include staffing costs; m) the account information is wholly inaccurate; n) the property known as 'Clouds' which adjoins the site was offered to Mr Aitken, but he never responded, not even to ask the price; o) the Business Plan lacks credibility; p) the applicant does not appear to have experience or qualifications in caring for rehabilitating horses or dealing with foaling situations, and, q) it was clear from the start that this is where the site was heading, the owner should have looked for sites with existing residential accommodation with them.
Determining Issues
1. Principle of the proposal 2. Impact on the character of the area 3. Impact on the amenities of neighbours 4. Highway safety issues 5. Developer Contributions 6. Use of renewable energy
Planning Considerations
1. Principle of the proposal
There are a number of policy considerations in relation to this proposal, some with different aims to others so the assessment of the principle is not straightforward.
The site is within the countryside, where policies GS3, C12 and H14 alongside PPS7 are relevant. Policy GS3 aims to protect the character of the countryside for its intrinsic character and beauty. Development will only be granted planning permission provided that: there is a genuine proven need for a countryside location, it would not harm the character, quality, and appearance of the countryside, it would not harm the landscape and the volume of traffic generated would not result in danger in the public highway or the rural character of local roads.
20 Policy C12 relates to equestrian uses within the countryside and the supporting text clarifies that residential development in connection with equestrian uses will not normally be permitted.
Policy H14 relates to new housing outside the settlement policy boundaries. It states that permission for new housing in the countryside will only be permitted where it is essential for a full time worker in agriculture, forestry or other enterprise who must live on site, rather than in a nearby settlement. The development must satisfy the following criteria: a) there are no opportunities for providing accommodation by converting or extending an existing building; b) the availability of suitable tied dwellings in the area has been investigated; c) new dwellings, where possible, should be located within or adjoining an existing group of buildings that already have a residential content; d) where it is not possible to locate the new dwelling within or adjoining an existing group of buildings, it must be demonstrated that its siting will maximise the functional requirement and financial viability of the enterprise; e) the dwelling is commensurate in size to the established functional requirement and financial viability of the enterprise; f) the siting, design and construction of the dwelling incorporate measures to optimise energy efficiently; and g) the occupier of the proposed dwelling has not been instrumental in disposing of any residential property in the preceding 5 years that would have satisfied the need identified.
PPS7 states that temporary workers dwellings will only be permitted where there is a clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise. A clear functional need must be established for the development (need for the enterprise, not the personal preference or circumstance of any individual involved). It further clarifies that availability of other suitable dwellings/accommodation must have been sought, and that access and impact on countryside issues are satisfied.
The applicant has submitted a more detailed planning statement with this application. It states that the core business activities are recuperation livery, breeding and rearing of young stock, preparation and sale of high-value competitive horses, full and part-time competition livery and teaching and ancillary services. It clarifies that the business plan is to gradually phase out the 'conventional' livery to further develop the recuperation/rehabilitation livery and breeding and rearing, to the point where these become the core elements of the business. The statement advises that each of these elements of the business, particularly the supervision of horses under rehabilitation and breeding, requires close supervision, which can only be provided by on-site residential accommodation.
21 This statement is further supported by questionnaires submitted with the application, completed by six veterinary practices and equestrian physiotherapist/chiropractor operating within the local area. All six completed questionnaires state that on-site residential accommodation would be essential for rehabilitation particularly for foaling, if they were to refer horses to Mr Aitkens business. The statement is further supported by 26 questionnaires which have been completed by horse owners, all of which, except one, indicated that they would not send their horses to Northfield Stables without on-site residential accommodation.
The planning statement sets out that supervision using modern technology would not be appropriate. The statement suggests that to use remote CCTV would require the upgrading of the audio equipment and increasing the number of cameras to cover all permanent stables, this would cost around £12,000 and if remote cameras were required, this would involve further capital outlay. It also states that a remote CCTV and alarm system would require the installation of broadband, which, according to the Plusnet website, in this area, suffers regular connectivity problems and local lines are restricted to 8Mbits/s data transfer speed. It sets out that the quality of the audio and visual reception is restricted and this would make it difficult to professionally identify and assess problems. Additionally, the statement advises that Mr Aitken would be required to sleep with a PC or TV on next to his bed, and that it would take 10-15 minutes to get dressed, get through security and reach the site. The applicant's assertion that remote monitoring by assistive modern technology would not be suitable is also further supported by the questionnaires referred to above from local veterinary practices, equestrian physiotherapist/chiropractor and owners. The statement also makes reference to a recent appeal decision where the agent argued that there were no examples within the country of this type of technology working and the Inspector considered it was not realistic to expect a worker to travel on a regular basis, throughout the night to a site.
The statement sets out the financial state of the business - details include the setting up costs of the business and the income since 2007. It includes copies of accounts for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, which show a small profit before tax. The business plan 2011-2014 shows how the rehabilitation and foaling income is projected to increase of the next three years, and therefore, confidently predicts that if on site accommodation can be provided, the business can be excepted to make operating profits of between £20,000-£25,000 within three years.
The planning statement sets out that the applicant has been in regular contact with local estate agents which deal with the area but concludes that no affordable suitable accommodation to is available within the area. The applicant has contacted the local housing association, but is not eligible for any of the available schemes because his predicted income is less than that required to qualify.
It is clear that Local Plan policies GS3, H14 and PPS7 can allow for dwellings in the countryside to house workers employed in rural enterprises in certain circumstances. Proposals for permanent or temporary accommodation must satisfy a series of tests within PPS7. Because of the specialist nature of the equestrian use, advice has been sought from the Hampshire County Council land agent and from consultants Bruton Knowles. Both were provided with the applicant's supporting information.
22 The County Land Agent who supported the previous application that was subsequently dismissed at appeal, concludes: " Taking into account the nature and the scale of the equestrian enterprise carried out and proposed I am of the opinion that there is a functional need to be readily available at most times in order to ensure that essential levels of husbandry, welfare, security and supervision of livestock are provided. As previously stated with particular reference to rehabilitation, and the breeding and rearing of young stock, a relatively high standard of care is required on a daily basis quite frequently outside of normal working hours. Furthermore, as has been born out by the questionnaire surveys, I consider that if there is not a residential presence on site then proposals for the business will be adversely affected as veterinary and private clients are unlikely to use facilities available especially since some of the horses are of relatively high value. The provision of CCTV surveillance systems is not a practical substitute for an on-site residential presence". He also states that he feels that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis now reinforced by the further financial information and Business Plan which have been provided in the current application, but acknowledges that it is still at a relatively early stage.
Bruton Knowles acting for the Council, have considered the proposal against the criteria within PPS7 and concluded: "Taking into account the evidence submitted, it is our opinion that the requirements of the criteria set out in Annex A of PPS7 for a temporary dwelling for an agricultural (equestrian) worker have not all been met by the application as submitted". They have considered the specific criteria within Annex A and concluded the proposal does not satisfactorily meet all the relevant tests. In particular, criteria 2 to 4 are not considered to be fully met. The criteria and the consultant's comments are set out below:
Criterion 1
Clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned (significant investment in new farm buildings is often a good indication of intentions).
Comment: "It is clear that the applicant has invested a significant amount of money and time into the business, and has the necessary ability (both equestrian and business) to run an enterprise such as the one already commenced and as proposed over the next three years. On this basis and in conjunction with the evidence now supplied I am of the opinion that Criteria 1 has now been met".
Criterion 2
Functional Need. A functional test is necessary to establish whether it is necessary for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times. Such a requirement might, for example, arise if workers are required to be on hand day and night ie. in the case of animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short notice; to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crop or product eg. by frost damage or failure of automated systems.
23 Comment: "The nature of the stock in question and their number will impact on whether incidents will occur that may require a very prompt response and these factors will also directly influence the frequency that such events may occur in. Whist the situation remains somewhat confused as to the exact business intentions, given the information provided within the supporting statements and financial projections supplied we summarise the likely position as follows. In year 3 it is assumed that of the 12 stables onside (including field shelters), there will be 5 stables dedicated to livery providing rehabilitation, foaling and conventional places. Combined these different livery types are projected to provide 79 months of livery occupancy. It is understood two further stable places will be occupied by 2 breeding mares owned by the applicant and which it is stated are expected to provide 2 foals per year. It would appear the remaining places will be occupied by the applicants own jumping horses, occasional sales liveries and animals for training, though this picture is somewhat confused.
Whilst all stock requires observation it is with regards to the foaling animals and to a lesser extent the recuperating stock where a greater monitoring requirement will rest.
A veterinary report submitted identifies action which was taken in July 2010 in respect of horse being kept at Northfield Stables. This report does not appear to make any specification recommendation for constant monitoring or suggest that otherwise out of hours care might be required. It is also noted that despite the applicant having operated an equestrian business from the site for a number of years no diary of incidents which required a prompt response has been provided, likewise no information has been submitted with regards to any cases which could have been prevented if accommodation were provided onsite or in close proximity.
Whilst the information submitted seeks to stress that many potential clients/referrers would prefer to send animals to a business where a residential presence is provided this is not the same as demonstrating that there is a functional need for a worker to reside on the holding or in the immediate vicinity.
In the case of the foaling activity based on the projections supplied there will be a maximum of six foalings occurring per year. This activity will be focused between the months of April and July and will also coincide with the lambing of the ewes kept on the holding. Given the information submitted there will be a number of different horses coming on to the holding over the year. However, even when mares for foaling are on site there will only be a maximum of seven horses that may require increased monitoring. Outside of this time there will a maximum of four rehabilitation livery cases on the holding at any one time.
Whilst when a new animal is introduced to the holding some disruption will occur, it remains the case that no animal will be onsite that will not have been released from veterinary care and it would appear to us that there is no likelihood that horses will be immediately post operative and thus possibly requiring round the clock care.
Whilst the other horses will require monitoring we would suggest that with the levels of stock care that would be typically expected there is no reason to believe that there is an increased likelihood of problems occurring which may require a very prompt response.
24 Given the relatively small stock numbers present on the holding and their nature we are not as yet convinced that it has been demonstrated that it is essential to the functioning of the enterprise that one or more workers be readily available at most times. However, it may be that a four – five month seasonal presence during the foaling/lambing period could be justified.
Monitoring equipment cannot be seen as a replacement for good stockmanship. However, it can assist with meeting the functional requirements of an activity and often affords an advance warning of a problem. In cases where stock are housed for the majority of the time CCTV combined with audio monitoring can prove especially effective. The applicant has made some investigations into the use of remote sensing technology primarily based on the use of an audio visual system that would rely on a broadband connection.
We have conducted our own review of some of the remote options that may be available. There are four main of ways of sending video and audio data remotely, one of which is by broadband connection. The others are cable, 3G mobile broadband and by wireless transmitter.
In this case, broadband, wireless transmitter and 3G solutions would appear to be potentially suitable. It is our understanding that provided a line of site can be achieved a wireless transmitter can send data some 3-5 miles. With regards to a broadband connection whilst it is accepted actual speeds may well be below the 8MB capability of the exchange we understand that in general real-time data can reliably be provided by a connection of between 3MB and 4MB speed. In terms of specific problems with the Medstead Exchange we have also conducted a search using the Plusnet website and we did not note any specific problems as being mentioned.
Whilst we do not know exactly what has been allowed for within the cost stated for the installation of a broadband audio visual monitoring system the figure used seems high. In any event, even if the cost indicated for the installation of CCTV and audio monitoring equipment is accurate this would seem a reasonable investment into the business if it helps to meet management requirements.
We note the appeal case mentioned in respect of CCTV monitoring and suitability and would note that this related to a very different type of enterprise.
It is our opinion that the information thus far does not allow us to dismiss the possibility of remote sensing being used as a management aid in this case. This does not mean that a prompt response may not be required in some circumstances though remote sensing can provide a helpful advance warning of problems.
Outside of foaling there would not appear to be a significantly increased likelihood of problems occurring outside of normal hours and which could only be dealt with by the very prompt response provided by a dwelling on or in close proximity to the site.
25 With regards to the requirements of policy H14, whilst no labour figure has been provided it would appear that the business provides full time employment for the applicant and that by year three additional labour may be required. This however, does not impact on our conclusions with regards to the functional requirements of the enterprise.
Irrespective of the use of remote sensing, it is our opinion that at the present time no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a functional need for a residential presence on site or in the immediate vicinity exists at most times. Therefore, at this time, I advise that we cannot conclude that this criteria has been met".
Response to additional information submitted to Bruton Knowles
Following the receipt of the above comments, further information relating to the anticipated number of rehabilitation cases per year and average length of stay was submitted to Bruton Knowles. Based on this information Bruton Knowles concluded that 'provided the business develops as planned i.e. with a focus on providing livery for specialists rehabilitation services then a functional need for a worker to be resident onsite or in close proximity will be established during the business plan period. However, if the anticipated number of cases were not to materialise, or more conventional livery services were to dominate, then, given the relatively small number of stable places a functional need would not exist.' Even if this functional need would materialise, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the need could not be met by the use of existing nearby properties.
Further information was also submitted with reference to CCTV and other remote monitoring aids. However, whilst it was highlighted in the original Bruton Knowles report that mobile based technology was not the only means of transmission and not necessarily to most appropriate, the additional information mainly focused on the use of mobile based transmission technology and referred to alleged frequent power cuts within Medstead. Based on this information Bruton Knowles concluded that 'no information has been supplied as to why otherwise remote monitoring aids could not be of benefit in this case, and no records of incidents of power cuts were supplied, or any record of the applicant having raised this issue with the relevant authority. It remains our opinion that such aids could be utilised and whilst no replacing direct management involvement they may provide early warning of an impending problems'.
'In our opinion the requirements of PPS7 require that it be demonstrated that it is essential to the functioning of the business that a residential presence be provided onsite or in close proximity rather than simply that potential clients will simply not use a particular service without a dwelling being provided'.
Criterion 3
Clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis.
26 Comment: "Along with four previous years accounts we have been supplied with budgetary projections for the next three years of business operations. In conjunction with this information, evidence of the measures taken to establish the potential market for the equestrian services proposed has also been provided. The accounts provided show a very modest level of profit in some years and losses in others, though this position is improved if the sum allowed for depreciation is removed and rises in stock value are also taken into account.
As this application relates to a case for a temporary dwelling it is with regards to the next three years where the greatest consideration must be given. These projections show income from livery, lessons, sale commissions and other sources. The bulk of the income in year 3 is projected to come from livery charges. It is stated that foaling livery will be charged at a rate of £170.00 per week and recuperation livery at £200.00 per week with these figures based on the charges made by other similar enterprises. Whilst we are aware of other businesses charging similar figures, these are in the main where greater facilities are provided and for example aqua treadmill, solarium etc are provided at Hartpury which is stated as being a comparable by the applicant. We are not sure what services are provided by Moulton equestrian which is cited as another comparable but in any event would query if the £307 figure quoted is a typographical error as this figure would seem very high.
Overall given the facilities currently available at Northfield Stables we would suggest an average rate of £170.00 per week for foaling and rehabilitation would seem more achievable. However, as the applicant is already have understood to operated an element of rehabilitation livery and if he can confirm he has achieved higher rates previously we would be content to revise our opinion.
Overall, presumed occupancy levels appear to be broadly inline with what might be expected though it is queried why it is expected that full livery levels will drop for two months of the year even by year 3. It is also noted that return from a full livery activity is shown in year three despite it being suggested elsewhere that this element would be phased out.
Also included in the income figures are returns from sales commissions, lessons and other sources. Whilst sales commissions are self explanatory it is not made clear if the income from lessons relates to horses being kept on livery on site, external activities or from people bringing their own horses on to the site for schooling. Likewise the how the ‘‘other’’ income is to be generated is not confirmed and as this contributes a not insignificant amount to the total sales it is important this issue is clarified. It would appear that no sales figure has been provided for youngstock reared onsite. It is uncertain if this is an error or it may be that there will be no youngstock ready for sale by the third year of operations.
Overall the costs allowed for would appear to be accurate and it is noted that a not insubstantial amount has been allowed for depreciation. However, it is noted that no allowance would appear to have been made for travel or vehicle costs despite such figures having previously been included within the previous years accounts. In addition, a cost that has been excluded is that associated with the provision of the timber unit of accommodation.
27 We do not accept the argument that this cost should be ignored because Mr Aitken may be able to cover the costs from his own savings. It is our opinion that in order for the business to demonstrate that it has been planned on a sound financial basis it must be able to bear the costs of any infrastructure associated with it, which should include the proposed unit of accommodation. Given the small cash reserves being shown as available to the business we would suggest that the full cost of the proposed structure will have to be borrowed and these costs deducted from the profit.
Therefore, at this stage, I am not able to advise that this criteria has been met. However, it is noted that with further clarification we may be able to revise this opinion".
Response to additional information submitted to Bruton Knowles
Further clarification was submitted to Bruton Knowles regarding the rates of livery and cost of the proposed unit of accommodation, and based on that information, Bruton Knowles concluded that 'the additional information regarding rates of charging which have been supplied appear to indicate that the intended livery rate is achievable. However, our comments stand that many of the other businesses used as comparable would appear to have access to greater facilities than those provided at Northfield Stables'.
Criterion 4
The functional need cannot be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned.
Comment: "There is no other dwelling on the unit, nor buildings capable of being converted (without impacting on the business operation – ie. existing stables).
The applicant has provided results of a review of property previously and currently available which includes a note that a search of the Rightmove website has been conducted but no suitable properties have been identified. However, it would not appear to be confirmed as to what criteria were used to asses the search results for suitability. Evidence of further efforts being made to assess whether other properties may be available is also provided with the reports submitted.
Our own search of the Rightmove websites has identified a number of properties which are available to rent or purchase in the general locality at a variety of prices. As was concluded at the previous appeal PPS7 does not raise the issues of affordability. In many cases properties will be unsuitable due to their scale and nature and in conjunction with this they may also be prohibitively expensive.
However Annex A does not set out to provide affordable housing in areas where prices are above national averages for the type of property which otherwise may be considered suitable. We are not aware of any guidance or policy which allows us to alter this opinion.
28 Even during the time of peak monitoring activity (during foaling) there will still be a response time which can be considered reasonable. In our opinion, remote sensing remains a potential management aid and one which may give advance warning of any problem.
Other than in the most exceptional circumstances a reasonable response time to any problem will still exist. After allowing for a proportion of ‘dead’ time’ (getting up etc) which could not be avoided even if onsite a driving time of around four minutes would seem reasonable. This would put properties within 1.5 – 2 miles radius of the site as being accessible in this time. As Rightmove does not automatically provide a search radius of this distance and to allow for local road conditions we have restricted our search to properties within 1 mile of the site.
If a problem is especially severe and veterinary assistance required it is clear that a further delay will be caused and it is unlikely that the slightly reduced response afforded by a presence directly onsite would prevent or effectively deal with the issue. The Rightmove search conducted has not identified any properties which are directly adjacent to the site and it is presumed that the three bedroom property in Paice Lane (just to the north of the site) which is identified in the submitted documents has now been sold as this was not shown either.
The properties which were identified by the search undertaken and these are summarised as follows; 4 bedroom semi detached property in Medstead village (approximately 1 mile from the site) marketed by Homes Estate Agents at a guide price of £325,000, 3 bedroom semi detached property in Red Bushes Close (some 0.8 miles from the site) marketed by Hamptons at a guide price of £299,950, 3 bedroom semi detached property in Red Bushes Close marketed by Cubitt West at a guide price of £285,000 and 3 bedroom detached property in South Town Medstead (approximately 0.5 miles from the site) marketed by Warren Powell-Richards at a guide price of £595,000.
A similar search has also been undertaken of rental property and this has identified the following; 2 no 3 bedroom semi detached houses to rent in Lymington Bottom Road (approximately 0.5 miles from the site) both marketed at a rent of £1,150 pcm by Hamptons and Keats respectively and 3 bedroom semi detached property in Red Bushes Close marketed by Hamptons at a rent of £1,250pcm.
Whilst one of the properties in Medstead is stated within the applicants submissions as being not suitable on functional grounds we do not hold the opinion that the evidence provided substantiates this view. Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise we are of the opinion that there are a number of properties currently available and suitable to meet the needs of this business and therefore Criteria 4 has not been met".
Response to additional information submitted to Bruton Knowles
Further information was submitted to Bruton Knowles regarding the dwellings previously highlighted as suitable. Bruton Knowles concluded that 'PPS7 does not introduce criteria of affordability in the consideration of other properties and we are not aware of any other guidance which allows us to revise this opinion.
29 Typically, agricultural/occupational workers dwellings tend to be comparatively modest properties in the 2-3 bedroom range. Actual market prices alter with location and it is not the purpose of Annex A to favour applicants in areas of higher demand over those in less desirable locations. In our initial appraisal we identified a number of dwellings which appeared suitable.
Given the additional information now supplied it would appear that some of these are of a scale and or nature so as to render them not suitable as other occupational workers accommodation. However, it remains that the information submitted has not addressed the issue of what a reasonable response time to any problem may be and whilst remote monitoring aids are dismissed we are of the opinion that the evidence submitted does not justify this position. On this basis it remains our view that properties within a 1 mile radius and up to 1.5-2 miles actual distance by road are likely to be able to meet the needs of the enterprise.
Even if the properties for sale that were previously highlighted are dismissed, there remain a number of properties which fall within the area indicated and these include the following; 2 bedroom flat in Four Marks marketed by Warren Powell-Richards at a guide of £129,950, 2 bedroom flat in Four Marks marketed by Homes Estate Agents at a guide of £110,000, 2 bedroom flat in Four Marks marketed by Warren Powell-Richards at a guide of £158,950, 2 bedroom flat in Four Marks marketed by Warren Powell-Richards at a guide of £129,950.
Whilst the applicant is understood to have previously investigated other properties in Four Marks (and indeed lived there for a while) it would appear these were primarily dismissed due to reasons other than distance from Northfield Stables, further reinforcing the view that properties in this location may be considered suitable.
In addition, no regard would appear to have been given to the rental properties we previously identified, at least one of which was closer to Northfield stables than the units of accommodation available for sale that we now highlight. Our opinion therefore remains that based on the evidence submitted there are other available properties which are suitable to meet the needs of the enterprise.
On the basis of the above comments, it is our opinion that not all the criteria of Annex A of PPS7 for a temporary dwelling have been met by the application as submitted'.
Criterion 5
Other normal planning requirements eg. siting and access are satisfied.
Comment: "From an agricultural/equestrian point of view siting would appear to be acceptable and I have no further comments to make on this issue".
30 2. Impact on the character of the area
The proposed dwelling would be 30 metres to the rear of the existing stable block. The site is well screened on all boundaries by mature hedgerows and 1.8m fencing. The external appearance of the dwelling is not in-keeping with other dwellings within the area; however, it is in-keeping with the existing form of development within the site. Any residential development would bring the usual associated domestic activity and paraphernalia such as cars, refuse bins, washing lines and there would, inevitably, be some impact on the rural character of the area. However, having regard to the scale of the development, the existing structures and the location of the building relative to existing development, the proposal would be unlikely to have a significantly harmful effect on the character of the area.
3. Impact on the amenities of neighbours
The dwelling would be sited well away from the neighbouring residential properties. A residential presence on site is unlikely to significantly increase the on-site activity or the traffic movements to and from the site. As such, any impact upon the residential amenities of near neighbours would be minimal.
4. Highways safety issues
The Hampshire County Council Highways Engineer is satisfied that through the use of conditions the proposed development would not result in any highway safety issues and no highway objection is raised.
5. Developer Contributions
Given that the proposal is for the temporary siting of a dwelling, developer contributions are not appropriate at this stage. Contributions would normally be required for proposals for a permanent dwelling.
6. Use of renewable energy
Policy E1 of the Local Plan requires new development to promote the conservation of energy by seeking the highest practicable degree of energy efficiency through appropriate location, orientation, layout and design. In this instance some information has been submitted but it is suggested by the applicant that the potential is limited due to the temporary nature of the structure.
Conclusion
It is clear that the applicant has invested significantly in the site and the business and that the potential for a successful business has been established. However, the long term future of the business has not been established and the applicant has not demonstrated that there is an essential functional need for a temporary dwelling to be provided on site.
31 As such, the proposal constitutes an intrusion of residential development in this rural area for which there is no overriding justification and which would further erode the visual amenity and rural character of the locality contrary to advice contained within PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and the policies of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review.
RECOMMENDATION REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1 The proposal comprises an intrusion of residential development in this rural area beyond the nucleus of the settlement, for which there is no overriding justification and which, if permitted, would further erode the visual amenity and rural character of the locality contrary to advice contained within PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and policies GS1, GS3 and H14 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
2 The proposal involves the erection of a dwelling in the countryside beyond any area identified in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review for further development for which no overriding justification has been made on grounds of agricultural/rural enterprise need; the proposal would therefore be contrary to the policies outlined in the above reason.
CASE OFFICER: Susie Ralston 01730 234242 ———————————————————————————————————————
32 SECTION 1 Item Northfield Stables, Soldridge Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5JF
33 SECTION 1 Item Northfield Stables, Soldridge Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5JF
Block plan
34 SECTION 1 Item Northfield Stables, Soldridge Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5JF
west side elevation
Rear elevation
35 SECTION 1 Item Northfield Stables, Soldridge Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5JF
East side elevation
Front elevation
36