4 11 02777 Stables Bank Farm

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MONDAY 12 DECEMBER 2011

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION

APPLICANT REFERENCE LOCATION PROPOSAL CONTACT ADDRESS DATE VALID GRID REFERENCE DATE OF APPLICATION

MR H TEACHER TW/11/02777 Stables Erection of a covered (Judith Norris Ltd Bank Farm sand school, formation Wordsworth House Sherenden Road of outdoor sand school, High Street TUDELEY manure barn and new Ticehurst CA stables within existing East Sussex barn. TN5 7BQ) 23/09/11 562782/145362 16/09/11

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 Bank Farm, on the western side of Sherenden Lane, is located to the east of Tudeley and just south of the Tonbridge to Paddock Wood railway line. Bank Farm appears on the 1870 OS map and forms part of the Hadlow Estate; this extends to about 1500 hectares of which 600 hectares are farmed in hand. Bank Farm itself is 90 hectares and was essentially an arable holding. The livery business was started in the redundant livestock buildings and operates as an equestrian business in partnership with the Hadlow Estate.

1.02 The application site is in the Low Weald, close to the Medway valley in Local Landscape Character Area 13 Paddock Wood/Five Oak Green Low Weald Farmland, in an area of intense arable farming rich in streams/ditches and wooded shaws. There are water courses and ponds to the west of the Farm associated with wooded shaws and a small woodland block that lies to the east of Sherenden Road is ancient woodland. The pattern of the wider landscape looks much as it did in 1870 but some shaws and hedgerows have been lost. Land immediately to the north of the farm complex has undergone most change in recent times with loss of orchard and internal division into separate paddocks.

1.03 In terms of planning policy and constraints, the application sites lies outside the Limits to Built Development and within the Green Belt (GB). The Oast and the Farmhouse to the south of it (within the blue land) are both Grade II Listed. There is a Public Right of Way which runs through the site (ref WT181). Sherenden Road is a designated Rural Lane.

1.04 The agent explains that the site is an active established livery – it presently provides 29 boxes with storage and tack which are located within five buildings as well as hay and bedding storage in two buildings and a wash down area in another. There is an indoor school which the agent states is undersized (18.2m x 24.5m). There is also an existing outdoor sand school/jump area measuring 20m x 60m. North of the railway line is an extensive area of toll rides. Some of the boxes (within buildings E and F) are used for „DIY‟ liveries whilst the others, situated within areas C and I, are used as serviced livery (full or assisted daily management under the supervision of the Yard Manager).

1.05 This application has been called in by Cllr Ransley as “the development provides additional employment opportunities in what is essentially a rural pursuit business already established in the green belt.”

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 This application comprises a number of different elements:

 Erection of an indoor sand school (the design of which has changed during the process of the application – see below).  The construction of 12 stables within an existing building (currently used as a covered sand school) for the use of assisted liveries.  The formation of an outdoor sand school.  The erection of a manure barn with extension to hard standing.  The diversion of a small section of PROW (which would be pursued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 following the grant of planning permission).  The regularisation of 4 additional stables, over and above the 25 permitted in previous planning applications.

2.02 Also, a further 4.4ha of grazing is proposed to meet the guidance of the British Horse Society, which advocates the ratio of partly stabled horses to grazing as one per 0.4 ha. The proposed plans by the applicant also involve some demolition: it is proposed to remove the easternmost 1950s hopper hut and a canopy on the hay store. The reason given for the demolition of the hopper hut block is to allow the re-alignment of an existing track to give access to the proposed outdoor sand school. The application is supported by a Statement about Bank Farm Livery and a Planning Statement (incorporating Design and Access). The latter has a number of appendices including a Landscape Statement, an Indicative landscape plan with a „Pasture, Woodland and Manure Plan‟ and some confidential financial information (which has been added to during the process of the application – see below).

Indoor Sand School

2.03 This new building would measure 25m x 42.35m, giving an overall footprint of over 1050 square metres. It would be located next to (south/south-west of) the existing indoor sand school building, hay store and Dutch barn (used for stables). The curved roof would have a maximum height of ridge of 6m, approximately the same as the existing indoor sand school building. The drawings show that the new building would be set into the existing slope of the land by up to 1.8m on the southern side. In terms of materials it would comprise a steel frame clad with Yorkshire vertical „hit and miss‟ boarding to the walls (stained in natural finish) and an aluminium or similar standing seam roof finish.

Construction of 12 loose boxes within existing building which currently houses an indoor sand school

2.04 No external alterations are proposed for the existing building. The site layout plan shows the proposed arrangements of the stables inside (which are intended to be full or assisted liveries).

Manure barn with extension to hard standing

2.05 This new barn would be 56 square metres and would accommodate two muck trailers (7m x 8m). In addition ramped decking is proposed on the western side to provide easy wheelbarrow access from the existing track (measuring 2.6m x 8m). It would be open sided with a maximum height of 5.5m (not 5m as quoted in the application / on the plans) and constructed from timber poles with a corrugated curved metal roof. The agent has explained that the existing muck store is poorly located near the hopper hut (area not shown on the existing layout plan).

Outdoor sand school

2.06 This new facility, which is proposed to be located behind / to the north-west of the two sets of hopper huts, would provide an area of 1230 square metres (figure quoted by agent). It would be more triangular in shape than a standard ménage - the three long sides would measure 40, 43 and 44m with the short/end side being only 15m. The land here is relatively flat and the finished works would have a silica sand finish. The sand school would be enclosed by a 1.2m high post and rail fence with a gate at the eastern end serviced from the re-aligned existing track.

2.07 The Planning Statement explains that this application results from the popularity of the livery yard and there is now a waiting list of horse owners. In support of the application the agent lists the following benefits:

 A soundly conceived estate diversification project which will generate income.  Employment (one full time job and part time employment).  Improved horse accommodation.  Better teaching and schooling facilities.  Extensive hacking and grazing on the Hadlow Estate.  Better muck handling and rainwater harvesting.  A facility that is well located close to centres of population in Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and Paddock Wood.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

3.01 TW/03/01512 – Proposed livery stables. Withdrawn.

3.02 TW/03/02103 – Livery stables and temporary mobile home. Appeal dismissed against non-determination.

3.03 TW/04/02310 – Change of use of redundant farm buildings and construction of 11 timber loose boxes to extend existing livery yard. Approved.

3.04 TW/04/02306 – Temporary stationing of mobile home to support equestrian business. Approved.

3.05 TW06/01971 – Conversion of redundant cowshed to dwelling. Approved.

3.06 TW/10/03141 – Erection of a covered sand school, formation of outdoor sand school, manure barn and new stables within existing barn. Refused.

3.07 The 2010 application above was refused for the following five reasons:

(1) The application site falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt where there is a strong presumption against new development. It is considered that the erection of the indoor sand school building is inappropriate development within the Green Belt as it fails to meet the criteria set out in paragraph 3.4 of Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts. In addition to it being harmful due to that definition, it would have a significant effect on openness by virtue of its scale, height and siting. The proposed conversion of the existing sand school building for a principal, and more intensive, use would also have a significant effect on openness due to the demands generated by twelve additional livery stables. The special circumstances have been put forward are insufficient to overcome the substantial weight given to the harm to Green Belts. The application is therefore contrary to Policy SP5 of The South East Plan 2009, Policy 2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010 and Policies MGB1 and LBD1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(2) The application site lies within open countryside, outside the Limits to Built Development as defined by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Proposals Map 2006. By virtue of its scale, height and siting the erection of the indoor sand school building, with twenty eight glazed panels in the roof slopes, would have a significant visual impact on the landscape character of the locality. The extra activity and visits generated by the improved indoor facility (which is likely to attract more users especially during darker hours of the day and during the winter months), the second outdoor ménage and the additional twelve stables is considered to cause significant harm to the character of the rural area and Sherenden Road which is a designated Rural Lane. The general intensification of the business is also likely to result in future pressure for additional hardstanding or ad-hoc parking at the Livery as no changes are proposed to the existing arrangement as part of the application. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies C4 and CC1 of The South East Plan 2009, Policies, 3 4 and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policies EN1 and EN25 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan.

(3) In the absence of a plan which shows the full extent of land ownership and the additional grazing land associated with the proposed intensification of the site which is referred to in the submitted written Statement, the Local Planning Authority are unable to satisfactorily assess the implications of additional horses at the livery in terms of maintaining the landscape character and quality of the area through appropriate land management. In addition it cannot be determined whether the Management Plan needs to be subject to a Legal Obligation. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies C4 and CC1 of The South East Plan 2009, Policies 4 and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan.

(4) The Visibility Splays shown on Drawing 115/10/02d are not shown correctly and therefore it has not been demonstrated that the required splays of 43m x 2.4m x 43m could be provided and retained without obstruction. As it stands the application is therefore detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policy TP4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(5) The proposed indoor sand school building would provide a floorspace of over 1000sqm and in the absence of a Renewable Energy Assessment the application is contrary to Policies NRM11 and CC4 of The South East Plan 2009, Policy 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the Borough Council‟s Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning Document which seek to ensure that any scheme incorporates renewable energy technology on-site to reduce predicted CO2 emissions by least 10%.

3.08 The agent has highlighted the changes that have been made to this current application:

i) Justification of the very special circumstances. ii) Removal of the glazing to the indoor school roof and the provision of photovoltaic panels on the south facing roof to meet the policy for renewable energy. iii) An assessment of the impact on the Rural Lane. iv) An improved car parking layout. v) A plan of the Hadlow Estate showing the full extent of land ownership. vi) Visibility splays. vii) An explanation and regularisation of the 29 boxes mentioned in the informative of the 2010 refusal.

4.0 POLICIES

4.01 National Policies

• Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. • Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. • Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. • Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. • Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. • Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable energy. Includes a Companion Guide. • Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control. - Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts. - Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport. - Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.

4.02 South East Plan 2009

- Policy SP5 – Green Belts. - Policy CC1 – Sustainable Development. - Policy CC2 – Climate Change. - Policy CC4 – Sustainable Design and Construction. - Policy RE3 – Employment and Land Provision. - Policy NRM1 – Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality. - Policy NRM5 – Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity. - Policy NRM7 – Woodlands. - Policy NRM11 – Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. - Policy C4 – Landscape and Countryside Management. - Policy BE5 – Village Management. - Policy BE6 – Management of the Historic Environment. - Policy TSR2 – Rural Tourism.

4.03 Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010

- Core Policy 1: Delivery of Development. - Core Policy 2: Green Belt. - Core Policy 3: Transport Infrastructure. - Core Policy 4: Environment. - Core Policy 5: Sustainable Design and Construction. - Core Policy 7: Employment Provision. - Core Policy 8: Retail, Leisure and Community Facilities Provision. - Core Policy 14: Development in the Villages and Rural Areas.

4.04 Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006

- Policy MGB1 – Metropolitan Green Belt. - Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 – Development Control criteria. - Policy EN13 – Tree and Woodland Protection. - Policy EN16 – Protection of groundwater and other watercourses. - Policy EN25 – Development control criteria for all development proposals affecting the rural landscape. - Policy TP2 – Multi-modal access for smaller-scale non-residential development. - Policy TP4 – Access to the road network. - Policy TP5 – Vehicle Parking Standards. - Policy TP9 – Cycle Parking

4.05 Other Documents/Material Considerations

- Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning Document. - Draft National Planning Policy Framework. - Ministerial Statement - Localism Bill

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

Capel Parish Council

5.01 24/10/11 – Recommend approval. An appropriate development in support of existing business which will provide much needed rural employment. Allows continued development of rural pursuits within the Greenbelt. The building are (sic) not visually intrusive and provides a well-designed and functional yard which accords to the Core Strategy and Local Policies.

Highways

5.03 10/11/11 – The visibility splays have now been correctly shown and subject to a condition to secure their provision and on going maintenance the proposal is acceptable.

Environment Agency

5.04 10/10/11 – No objection. The application poses a low environmental risk based on the submission and the location.

Southern Water

5.05 11/10/11 – The application makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). As the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long-term maintenance of the SUDS facilities drainage details should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Environmental Services

5.06 03/10/11 – Conditions and informative requested re amplification, lighting and burning of waste material plus sewage.

Rural Planning Limited

5.07 14/10/11 – Unfortunately it is difficult to put too much weight upon the financial data that has been submitted as it stands; it does not appear to have any detailed accompanying explanation or interpretation. Various queries raised.

5.08 07/11/11 – As a result of the details now submitted, I consider the applicants have demonstrated the addition of the indoor riding arena and associated developments to be a cogent and well thought out scheme, which is appropriate and necessary to secure and enhance the reputation and viability of the business.

Tree Officer

5.09 28/10/11 – No tree reason for objection and no conditions necessary.

Client Services

5.10 12/10/11 – This proposal is not affected by the domestic collection arrangements however, any business should ensure that it has a secure are

Ramblers Association, Local Footpath Officer

5.11 26/09/11 – Agree in principle to a mall diversion and the provision of a link path on the other side of Sherenden Road. Therefore no objection provided that the Right of Way is in no way compromised during construction.

Kent County Council Rights of Way Officer

5.12 11/11/10 (in relation to previous application) – The proposal affects public footpath WT180 which crosses the site. The application includes proposals to divert the public right of way under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In principle I have no objection to this.

Private

5.13 None received.

6.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

6.01 Application Form received 23 September 2011.

6.02 Supporting Planning Statement including Design and Access received 16 September 2011.

6.03 Site Location Plan received 16 September 2011.

6.04 Site Ownership Plan received 16 September 2011.

6.05 Level Survey received 16 September 2011.

6.06 Bank Farm Livery document received 16 September 2011.

6.07 Confidential Financial Annexe received 16 September 2011.

6.08 Additional Confidential Financial information received 7th November 2011.

7.0 APPRAISAL

7.01 The main issues are considered to be:

 Principle of Development in Greenbelt.  Visual Impact and landscaping.  Highways and traffic generation in respect of the intensification of use.  Diversion of PROW and removal of Hopper Hut.  Residential amenity.  Impact on Listed Buildings.  Renewable Energy.  Regularisation of four stables.

Principle of Development in Greenbelt

7.02 The use of land within Green Belts can have a positive role to play in fulfilling a number of objectives which include i) to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas and ii) to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses. However, PPG2 clearly states that in addition to general policies of countryside restraint there is a general presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts and such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted and very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

7.03 With reference to PPG2, the construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Essential facilities should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Examples given in the PPG include small stables for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation.

7.04 The formation of an outdoor sand school and the erection of the manure barn do not raise any particular concerns due to their nature, location and scale. The proposed manure store does result in an encroachment into the field and involves an extension to the hard standing surface. However, it would be an open-sided structure and details to prevent it from being unduly intrusive in the landscape could be covered by conditions. The fact that the existing canopy attached to the adjacent hay store would be removed as part of the scheme has been taken into account.

7.05 Taking account of paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of PPG2, the re-use of the existing sand school building for additional stabling does raise a concern as it would have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt (GB) than the current sand school for two reasons. Not only would it be used more intensively but it would also be for a principal use and the consequence of accommodating more horses at the site is that it would generate a significant amount of activity and increase the demand for associated facilities.

7.06 The erection of a new sand school building also needs to be assessed carefully – first considering whether it is inappropriate or not. To reach a conclusion of this the following are relevant:

a) Whether the facility is essential for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within. b) Whether the facility is small scale. c) If the facility is felt to be inappropriate, then it must be decided whether there are very special circumstances to justify the development. This will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

In response to each of these issues:

a) There is currently an indoor sand school (measuring 24.5m x 18.2m) and an outdoor sand school. The latter is to be retained and the proposal includes a new, further outdoor sand school (which is not considered to be inappropriate in terms of Green Belt policy).

Whilst it is acknowledged that there is already an indoor sand school building at the Livery (which would be lost through conversion) the proposed building is not a replacement building and it does represent a large scale facility. From the information submitted it is concluded that the facility is desirable and not essential. It also conflicts with the purposes of including land within the GB. It is of relevance that the existing indoor sand school was installed within an existing and redundant agricultural building.

b) It is felt that a new building with a footprint of over 1000sqm cannot be classed as small scale.

c) The Planning Statement explains that there is an identified need for additional assisted livery spaces and that the indoor school is needed to provide facilities in an enclosed environment for safe teaching, and for schooling and breaking horses. It allows use all year round and internal lighting allows livery clients to ride after work. The proposed size, 25m x 42m, would accommodate the official size of a small dressage arena which is 20m x 40m. Much schooling work is based on 20m circles and this has dictated the proposed size. The existing indoor school is 18.2m x 24.5m and is limited in terms of use. It is also argued that the Hadlow Estate provides a unique opportunity to provide the facilities.

7.07 The proposed development is not considered to fall within any of the criteria listed within Paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 and is therefore considered to be inappropriate. As well as being inappropriate it is not small scale and is a large solid building that would clearly impact upon openness of the Green Belt

7.08 In support of the „very special circumstances‟ argument, the agent has submitted some financial details. At the time of the submission these were all historic and with no future budgetary analysis exploring the costs/benefits of the proposed development. As part of their case, the agent is arguing that the proposals are essential and very necessary for the continued success of the small rural enterprise and that they would strengthen the financial viability of the livery enterprise and the overall farming business.

7.09 The proposed indoor ménage would be inappropriate by definition and it would have a material effect on the openness of the Green Belt. It is not felt that the „very special circumstances‟ arguments put forward are sufficient to outweigh the harm. It is noted that one of the changes to this current application included the „justification of very special circumstances‟. Whilst no additional information could be found on the arguments that the development is essential and very necessary for the continued success of this small enterprise and that it would strengthen the financial viability of the livery enterprise and the overall farming business, some more financial data was submitted at the request of the Council‟s agricultural consultant during the consideration of this application to demonstrate how the proposed indoor riding arena would further prove financially „essential and very necessary‟ to the business and to provide a fully budgeted appraisal indicating the likely financial position with/without the new building.

7.10 The agricultural consultant has concluded that “The applicants have now provided detailed accounts (up to the 30 September 2010) and whilst demonstrating continuing profitability, the last of these years does indicate quite a significant fall in profits, due to rising costs relative to income. The latest submissions do provide and quantify, in some detail, the managerial and economic rationale for the further capital investment now proposed, in order to reverse the latter trend and enhance the income from the livery facility and secure its continued viability. In summary, the Council‟s agricultural consultant explains that the additional submissions indicate that there should be good potential for increasing the monthly service livery rate per horse and that this would be the main factor justifying the additional expenditure proposed.

He concludes that “as a result of the details now submitted, I consider the applicants have demonstrated the addition of the indoor riding arena and associated developments to be a cogent and well thought out scheme, which is appropriate and necessary to secure and enhance the reputation and viability of the business”. This conclusion has been taken into account but it is not felt that it equates to the required “very special circumstances” in terms of Green Belt policy. There are a variety of businesses located within the Green Belt and the reasons being made by the agent for this development could be easily repeated by others. Importantly, it is considered that the improvements that would be achieved could result from an alternative scheme. The business is financially viable and it has not been shown that the demolition of the existing indoor ménage, a replacement, albeit bigger, indoor ménage building and the erection of a modest stable building would also not „secure and enhance the reputation and viability of the business‟. Furthermore, it is considered that the development could be more sensitively designed and located thereby reducing its visual impact. The agent was asked to consider this in October 2010 when the proposal was first being considered. The additional financial information that has been provided only includes an analysis of the current proposal against a possible cheaper alternative of providing additional timber stabling and retaining the existing covered arena. Furthermore the agent, in her letter dated 3rd November 2011 which was accompanied by the additional financial information, states that runs of timber boxes provide a poor environment during extremes of temperature, timber boxes have a shorter lifespan, they do not improve the viability of the business and in this particular case it would be difficult to site them satisfactorily. It is acknowledged that a covered yard is more staff and user friendly but a new, modest building providing this type of accommodation has not formed part of any assessment as requested. The sheer size and scale of the proposed building has a considerable impact on openness and in conclusion it is felt that reason for refusal no. 1 still applies.

Visual Impact and landscaping

7.11 The Submission includes a landscaping scheme to help mitigate the impact of the development. This includes:- native woodland planting around three sides of the proposed indoor sand school, native woodland planting to the north of the proposed outdoor school native hedgerow alongside Sherenden Road and around the common boundaries with New Cottages a pasture, woodland and manure management plan. The Landscape Officer is of the opinion that the areas of land to be developed are, in general, already disturbed and where development goes beyond this the land is mostly grazing or isolated rough grass. There is a small area of scrub to the east that would be lost. He has confirmed that the submitted Landscape Statement provides sufficient information for the Council to consider the landscape impact of the proposal.

7.12 The views of the Landscape Officer have been taken into account but the various measures that have been proposed to help mitigate the impact of the proposals do not make the scheme acceptable. Whilst the proposed location of the new building is adjacent to existing buildings on one side, it would be discernible in the landscape because of its height, design, materials and scale. It would clearly and significantly extend the existing area of development in a particularly sensitive location. Whilst it could be argued that the building is of an agricultural style it would not be perceived as one because of its relationship with the livery yard and associated areas such as the adjacent proposed outdoor jumping area. The building would be very large in comparison to the existing buildings within the complex and it would be highly visible to people using the PROW which runs across this part of the site in an east-west direction and Sherenden Lane (which is a country road and designated Rural Lane). The re-aligned footpath would only be 8 – 9m away from the building‟s south elevation (there is currently a distance of approximately 19m between the PROW and the indoor sand school building).

The proposed sand school would be closer to Sherenden Road than any other building within the complex and at the nearest point there would only be an intervening distance of 30m. There would still be an open view of the southern side of the complex when travelling north along Sherenden Road above the proposed planting.

7.13 The Council‟s Urban Design Team Leader has commented on the application and confirms that the landscape is very open. There is a disparate collection of agricultural buildings on the site and whilst the exposed context renders them very visible their scale and the complexity of the various forms is not unpleasing in the landscape. He goes to say that the proposal is to introduce a new building which is of a quite different scale into this context and from a design point of view this will be difficult to assimilate successfully. The view from the south in particular will be of a truncated building dug into the landform and a vast area of dominating roof. The topography does offer the possibility of partly burying the building with appropriate landscaping and boundary treatments to soften its profile but this would be expected anyway. During the process of the application, and in response to the Urban Design Officer‟s comments, the roof of the proposed building has been changed from a pitched design constructed from corrugated concrete roof panels in natural finish to a curved roof with an aluminium or similar standing seam roof finish. This change is not considered to be an improvement on the scheme originally submitted. Whilst its maximum height is lower it is felt, overall, to have a more bulky appearance and is of a dominant, unbroken form.

7.14 Turning to the proposed conversion of the ménage building, it is felt that whilst its form, bulk and general design are not out of keeping with the previous farm use, it is a structure which is not congruous with its proposed use as a block of stables. If the building was not already there it is very unlikely that a proposal for twelve stables would take that form (with a height of over 6m). The stable building would be much larger than it would need to be and consequently it results in an unnecessary and unacceptable impact in respect of the use and activity within it.

7.15 It is not felt that the new design with a curved roof satisfactorily addresses previous concerns. A revised version of Reason for Refusal no. 2 therefore still stands.

Parking

7.16 Parking is dispersed around the site and the addition of supplementary and improved facilities are likely to lead to a greater number of vehicles and trailers etc. Car parking currently takes place around the yard, whilst horse lorries are parked to the west of the oast houses to the north-east, and trailers are parked behind the westernmost hopper hut. As part of the 2010 application, the existing parking areas for cars, horse boxes and lorries would have been retained as per the existing arrangement (shown on plan 115/10/02d). Concern was raised about the general intensification of the business being likely to result in future pressure for additional hard standing or ad-hoc parking at the Livery which would encroach into the countryside. The fact that trailers are currently parked behind one of the hopper huts demonstrates that room is already limited and extends beyond the main complex. The proposed site layout plan submitted for this current application addresses this point and has included additional parking for horse boxes behind the hopper huts and to the west and south west of the Oast. A new car parking area has also been added to the east of the proposed manure barn, extending the hardstanding further into the field in this area. Minor changes have been made to existing areas in terms of orientation or numbers. Overall, this is felt to be acceptable and could have been controlled by condition.

Land management

7.17 Details of the additional grazing land associated with the twelve new stables has not been provided and therefore it has not been demonstrated that the landscape character and quality of the area could be maintained satisfactorily though appropriate land management. The agent states that a plan has been provided showing the 1500 hectares which comprises the Hadlow Estate and the Site Plan does show an increased area outlined in blue. However, there is no clear plan showing the full extent of the equestrian land. The management plan submitted provides for management of the pasture but does not sufficiently include full fencing details and management of existing landscape features/vegetation. Whilst it would be preferable to have the information at this stage it could be addressed, via a condition, through a separate landscape and ecological management plan covering new planting, existing features/vegetation and ecological enhancements. Reason for refusal no. 3 therefore still stands.

Highways and traffic generation

7.18 The agent has stated that the livery currently generates approximately 20 visits per day and as the additional 12 stables are to be full or assisted liveries they would generate only a very small amount of additional traffic because owners rely on the yard manager to help look after the horses. However, it is felt that the intensification of the site would generate a significant amount of additional movements because, not only are there 12 extra stables (representing an increase of 41% based on the existing figure of 29 or 48% based on the figure of 25 quoted in planning history documents) but there would be a totally new facility (a second outdoor ménage) and a much larger, more attractive facility (the indoor ménage) which would particularly attract users during darker hours of the day and during the winter months. The proposed expansion of the livery would lead to a materially greater impact on the locality than the existing business has and the increase in activity and vehicles would result in an adverse change in the character and appearance of this part of the countryside. This has been covered by reason for refusal no. 2.

7.19 The agent has explained that the yard is surrounded by small lanes that provide a reasonably safe environment for hacking but because local off road hacking is better, limited use is made of them. Kent Highway Services has not raised any objection regarding traffic generation in terms of safety.

7.20 With regard to the visibility splays at the entrance, the agent has explained that following planning permission for „the change of use of redundant farm buildings and the construction of 11 timber loose boxes to extend existing livery yard‟ under reference TW/04/02310 maximum visibility splays were provided as indicated on the approved plan (not conditioned) and it is argued that the current splays are acceptable. The Highways Officer has confirmed the required visibility splays have been shown correctly on the submitted plan. Their permanent retention could be conditioned under this application.

Diversion of Public Right of Way and removal of Hopper Hut

7.21 The Public Rights of Way Officer at Kent County Council has no objection in principle to the diversion of the footpath, which would require separate approval, and no other issues on this aspect of the proposal have come to light. The proposal involves the demolition of one of the pair of the Hopper Huts and no proposal for its relocation has been put forward for consideration. Whilst it could be argued that the Hopper Huts are part of the evolution of the farmstead and a characteristic feature of the area (as suggested by the Landscape Officer) weight has been given to the fact that they are of modern origin built in the 1950s and that as they are not specifically mentioned in the Listed descriptions of either the farmhouse or oast. From the information available at the time of writing they are not considered to be Curtilage Listed and as they are not of particular significance or value in terms of their appearance the proposed removal is felt to be acceptable.

Residential amenity

7.22 There are a number of residential properties within or adjacent to the application site. To the east and south of existing stables is a property known as Stable Cottage (within red line) - this is the manager's dwelling and permission for the conversion was given in 2006. As this is an integral part of the complex there are no major issues in terms of impact on amenity. There is a Grade II Listed Building between the yard and Sherenden Road (within blue land). This is the former farmhouse and it has been explained that it is part of the Estate but occupied by a tenant. There are two further dwellings (1 and 2 New Cottages) within the blue land. These are located to the south/south-west of the proposed outdoor and indoor ménages. Due to the past and existing relationship with the business / Estate and the distances involved there are not considered to be any particular issues.

Impact on Listed Buildings

7.23 Consideration has been given to the preservation of the setting of the two Listed Buildings adjacent to the Livery and it is concluded that there is no conflict with the relevant policies due to existing buildings and distance.

Renewable Energy

7.24 In accordance with TWBC‟s Renewable Energy SPD and its associated policies, proposals for buildings (new build or conversions) with a floorspace of 1000 sqm or more require a Renewable Energy Assessment to be prepared. This seeks the incorporation of renewable energy technology the potential to meet the on-site to reduce predicted CO2 emissions by at least 10%. The proposed sand school building has a floorspace of over 1000sqm and it has been highlighted by the agent that its internal lighting allows livery clients to ride after work. The provision of photovoltaic panels on the south facing roof of the indoor school have were put forward on the original pitched roof to meet the policy on renewable energy. Six panel areas were shown on the left hand side of the roof but no written details have been submitted to demonstrate the 10% requirement by completing the form in the SPD for example. Moreover, these panels have been omitted from the new curved roof and therefore renewable energy does not form part of the application. Consequently, as it has not been demonstrated that the 10% requirement has been met, this again has to form a reason for refusal.

Regularisation of the four stables

7.25 In terms of regularising additional stables over above those granted permission, the agent has explained, in section 3.5 of the Statement, that the four stables were provided over four years ago (two were in place at the time of the 2004 application but the committee report incorrectly referred to 14 existing stables instead of 16 and the other two result from the subsequent modification of a feed room). In the circumstances it is considered that this matter is best dealt with separately under a Lawful Certificate application.

Other matters

7.26 An ecological assessment has also not been submitted as part of the application but the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that the habitats that would be affected are small and at the edge of larger, better habitats. As such, impacts on biodiversity and protected species are likely to be limited and capable of mitigation through construction practice, new landscaping and improved management. Indeed a scheme of management and wider enhancements is likely to lead to an overall enhancement for biodiversity. It is concluded that surveys, in this particular case, could be dealt with by way of a condition.

7.27 Consideration has been given to the arguments made by the applicant and the Parish Council, especially those related to the rural economy. The guidance provided in PPS4 and the Draft National Planning Policy Framework have also been taken into account. As discussed earlier, and without prejudice to the determination of the application, the agent was asked at the beginning of the process in 2010 about the possibility of removing the existing indoor sand school building as part of the overall scheme so that the proposed, albeit bigger, indoor ménage would be presented as a replacement and the stables would be of a more modest design. Consideration has been given to the agent‟s response in a letter dated 1st November 2010 and 3rd November 2011. For clarification, LP Policy R9 has been discussed by the agent in the submitted Statement but this policy has been deleted / not been „saved‟ as part of the Local Development Framework.

7.28 Taking all of the above into account, it is recommended that this application is refused for four reasons.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

(2) The application site lies within open countryside, outside the Limits to Built Development as defined by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Proposals Map 2006. By virtue of its scale, height and siting the erection of the indoor sand school building would have a significant visual impact on the landscape character of the locality. The extra activity and visits generated by the improved indoor facility (which is likely to attract more users especially during darker hours of the day and during the winter months), the second outdoor ménage and the additional twelve stables is considered to cause significant harm to the character of the rural area and Sherenden Road which is a designated Rural Lane. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies C4 and CC1 of The South East Plan 2009, Policies, 3 4 and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policies EN1 and EN25 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan.

(3) In the absence of details which show the additional grazing land associated with the proposed intensification of the site which is referred to in the submitted written Statement, the Local Planning Authority are unable to satisfactorily assess the implications of additional horses at the livery in terms of maintaining the landscape character and quality of the area through appropriate land management. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies C4 and CC1 of The South East Plan 2009, Policies 4 and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan.

(4) The proposed indoor sand school building would provide a floorspace of over 1000sqm and in the absence of a Renewable Energy Assessment the application is contrary to Policies NRM11 and CC4 of The South East Plan 2009, Policy 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the Borough Council‟s Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning Document which seek to ensure that any scheme incorporates renewable energy technology on-site to reduce predicted CO2 emissions by least 10%.

Informative:

(1) The plans taken into consideration in reaching the decision to refuse planning permission are: Drawing no. 115/10/22A Proposed Site Layout Plan received 16 September 2011; Drawing no. 115/10/23A Landscape Plan received 16 September 2011; Drawing no. 115/10/25 Proposed Floor Plan received 16 September 2011; Drawing no. 115/10/26a Proposed Elevations received7 November 2011; Drawing no. 115/10/27a Proposed Massing Elevations / Sections received 7 November 2011; Drawing no. 115/10/28 Proposed Sand School received 16 September 2011; Drawing no. 115/10/29 Manure Barn received 16 September 2011 and Drawing no. 115/10/30 Vision Splay received 16 September 2011.

Reference: CP3/TN

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council‟s website.

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.