Application no: 20140636 Location: Rose Small Holdings Harvel Road Meopham Gravesend Description: Reduction and retention of concrete hardstanding. Applicant: Mr & Mrs Russ Bennett Decision Level: Planning Regulatory Board Recommendation Approval With Conditions For Conditions: please see end of report Site Description The site is an agricultural holding of some 8.9 hectares (22 acres) located on the western side of Harvel Road opposite the residential development in Timberbank, Vigo Village. There is a dwelling on the site and historically the site has been used for many diverse agricultural and horsicultural activities. In the past the site has been used for both sheep and cattle but is now primarily used for the grazing, keeping and breeding of Welsh Cob ponies. There are several stable blocks scattered throughout the holding. A small block of kennels is located immediately to the rear of the residential dwelling. Planning History The site has a complex planning history relating to the dwelling and the farmland with numerous breaches of planning control having been investigated in the past. An extensive hard-standing was installed in 2011 and was the subject of enforcement investigations, retrospective applications and appeals. A Planning Inspectorate decision, following a refusal by the Council, concluded that the hard- standing together with its inspection pit was excessive in regard to the size of the holding and regarded them as ‘inappropriate development detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt’. An application for its retention and reduction in its size (20131122) was refused by the Council in January 2014 on the grounds that it was still regarded as being excessive for the needs of the holding and the vehicles and machinery the Inspector had referred to. Since then there has been continuing negotiations as to what would be acceptable to the LPA which has resulted in this application. Development Plan Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the adopted Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy September 2014, saved policies from the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and saved policies from the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plans. Saved policies contained in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review should still be accorded significant weight, albeit that the weight accorded should be greater where policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, paragraph 215). The policies relevant to the consideration of this application are set out below. Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy September 2014: CS02 – Scale & Distribution of Development CS19 – Development & Design Principles Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994: C17 – Horse riding and Stables Other Relevant Guidance National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy has been found to be sound and consistent with the NPPF. The weight to be given to the saved policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plans will depend on their consistency with the NPPF. Planning Practice Guidance supports and clarifies areas in the NPPF. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) which means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. Supplementary Planning Guidance The Council has adopted a number of Supplementary Planning Guidance documents, Development Briefs and Conservation Area Appraisals. These elaborate on saved policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and policies in the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy and are material considerations in determining planning applications. The following documents are relevant to the consideration of this application: • SPG 1: Landscape Character (July 2006) • SPG 2: Biodiversity Conservation (July 2006) Consultations, Publicity and Representations Regulatory Services - As the concreted area and inspection pit have been used for vehicle maintenance, I would recommend the following to ensure the underlying soil has not been impacted by such activities: Soil Decontamination. The applicant shall undertake a watching brief during construction in case any contamination issue is encountered. If during development any contamination is found, the local planning authority should be informed as soon as practical and the work shall not continue until written agreement is provided by the LPA as to the appropriate measures to be taken to resolve the matter and they are satisfied that those measures have been carried out. I would also suggest that the applicant consider the drainage of the remaining hardstanding should vehicles continue to be stored/maintained on it. Meopham Parish Council: has an objection to the above planning application on the grounds of the detrimental impact to the visual aspect on the openness of the countryside in the greenbelt. Vigo Parish Council – Views awaited Local Residents – A total of 17 properties in Timberbank and Harvel Road were consulted and one letter of objection has been received. Cllr Boycott has supported the objections This letter is comprehensive and draws from previous Council reports and the Inspectorates decision of 22 October 2013. In summary there concerns are: 1) No agricultural need 2) Detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt and rural character 3) Contrary to NPPF 4) In excess of reasonable lawful use of the site 5) Detrimental to landscape character 6) The permanent use of the site for commercial use unrelated to agricultural or equine activities would seriously detract from the natural rural character of the site. In essence the objectors concerns relate to the use of the land by the applicant for activities related to his commercial businesses rather than activities related to agriculture or hobbies. The objector acknowledges that the concrete hard-standing cannot be seen from outside the site because of landscaping and high hedges. Analysis The concrete hard-standing was first discovered in 2011by the Planning Enforcement Team during an inspection relating to another reported breach of planning control. The applicant was advised that the holding was the subject of an Article 4 Direction taking away all his normal permitted development rights and that permission was required. The application was requested for the retention of the concrete hard standing, inspection pit and agricultural field gate. No objections are raised to the retention of the field gate but the hard- standing is considered to be excessive in size and no agricultural justification for the provision of an Inspection Pit has been submitted. The retrospective application (20120988) was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal. The Inspector concluding that the hard standing and its associated features were excessive and not requisite to the lawful use of the land and were consequently inappropriate development detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. The applicant submitted an application (20131122) to retain a smaller area of concrete hard- standing and removing the inspection pit but again did not put forward any agricultural justification other than the need for a wash down area for Welsh Cobs kept on the land and parking the vehicles associated with the equine use. The Council accepted that a hard-standing had existed previously and that this formed the base for the concrete pad that had been erected. It also acknowledged that the applicant had put forward a case to justify its use for equine activities associate with the washing down of horses and the parking and storage of vehicles and machinery. However the Council still considered the area to be in excess of what would be needed and is consequently recommended for refusal. The area was considered to be more akin to working on large commercial vehicles which the applicant has historically maintained visit the site from time to time and is consistent with allegations regularly made by local resident that the site is being used as a transport yard. In refusing the application on 31 January 2014 the council has acknowledged that there may be justification for a concreted area for use as a wash-down area and an informative was attached to the refusal advising the applicant to consider a further reduction subject to discussion with officers. This application is a result of these negotiations and the concrete hard-standing will be reduced to half the size of that which previously existed. The retained area will be that immediately alongside the dwelling and internal access roads and the area nearest the highway will be removed, top-soil laid, and landscaped. The submitted plan identifies all the applicant’s agricultural vehicles and machinery associated with the equine use, which were noted by the Inspectorate when they visited the site. The use of the area for hard-standing has to be considered in terms of the NPPF (March 2012) and the recently adopted Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy.