REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE 12 DECEMBER 2007 REPORT BY: CHIEF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICER PREPARED BY: C B Clarkson Dip TP MRTPI (01254 388111) APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 FOR DETERMINATION Purpose of Report: To present planning applications for determination as set out in the report 1. 11/07/0105 Lords House Farm, Wilpshire Road Rishton 2 Blackburn 2. 11/07/0350 Former Huncoat Power Station off Lowergate 9 Road Accrington 3. 11/07/0648 Land adjacent No 11 Bridge Houses Baxenden 16 Accrington 4. 11/07/0654 Land at Pollard Street Accrington 19 5. 11/07/0665 Greycroft Residential Home 15 Queens Road 24 Accrington 6. 11/07/0669 210 – 212 Blackburn Road Accrington 28 7. 11/07/0679 103 Willows Lane Accrington 33 8. 11/07/0686 Land at 309 – 317 Union Road Oswaldtwistle 36 9. 11/07/0705 Accrington & Rossendale College Sandy Lane 42 Accrington 10. 11/07/0714 43 Willow Park Oswaldtwistle 45 11. 11/07/0629 Former Sewage Works Hermitage Street Rishton 49 12. 11/07/0647 Great Harwood Lodge Edward Street Great 56 Harwood 13. 11/07/0744 Owl Hall Plantation Road Accrington 60 NOTE: The policies referred to under “Relevant Policies” are set out in the Hyndburn Borough Local Plan (reference letters) and the Lancashire Structure Plan (reference numbers). These documents may be inspected at the Council Offices. 1 THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL (Cat A) 11/07/0105 Lords House Farm Wilpshire Road Rishton Blackburn BB1 4AH Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use: Use by customers other than solely the disabled in contravention of planning conditions attached to planning permissions 11/93/0398 & 11/94/0086. The Trustees Site description and locality Lords House Farm is located to the east of Wilpshire Road and to the north of Lee Lane, Rishton. The site is accessed via a track 300m long which runs to the side of Close Nook Farmhouse and Cottage. LHF is used as a centre for riding for the disabled, but has also expanded the facilities provided to include other activities. The site lies within the Green Belt and is located in a highly visible position on land which rises up towards the north. Details of proposal The applicant has applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness pursuant to Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 on the grounds that the use of the premises in breach of a condition on planning permissions restricting the use to disabled people began more than ten years before the date of this application. Planning history 11/05/0208 Erection of undercover riding arena. Approved conditionally 10.11.2005. 11/02/0490 Installation of septic tank. Approved conditionally 29.11.2002. 11/01/0519 Erection of timber building for animals and storage of agricultural machinery. Approved conditionally 18.1.2002. 11/98/0059 Reconstruction of barn to form training rooms, kitchen equipment store and first floor residential accommodation. Approved conditionally 27.8.1998. 11/94/0086 Formation of riding arena. Approved conditionally 26.4.1994. 11/93/0398 Additional use of stables and land for riding for the disabled. Approved conditionally 15.9.1993. 11/90/0382 Change of use from non-agricultural to horse breeding. Approved conditionally 20.9.1990. 11/89/0810 Change of use from agricultural land to horse breeding. Approved conditionally 9.4.1990. Consultations Head of Environmental Health: No comment. Neighbouring properties notified: 13 letters of objection have been received from and behalf of the owners of Close Nook Cottage and from other residents of the Borough. The following objections have been raised: The only access to LHF is along the single track down the side of Close Nook Cottage, which was a dirt track but has now been tarmacked. The access track is not for the sole use 2 of the applicants, but is owned by the owners of Close Nook Cottage, and the applicants have right of way along the track. There is a litigation matter involving LHF and the owners of the track. If the planning regulations had not been breached the access track would be a safe place and not a matter which needs to be litigated upon. In considering whether to allow a Certificate of Lawfulness, the Committee should be aware of the intolerable situation which the owners of Close Nook Cottage find themselves in. The development of a commercial riding centre would result in an increase in traffic movements which would create serious safety issues for the occupiers of Close Nook Cottage, their visitors and their animals and livestock. The applicants have stated that there would be no increased traffic movements, but it is inconceivable that traffic movements will remain the same after future developments. Surveys of existing traffic movements along the access showed levels varied between 66-160 movements per day, and over 6 days there were 817 movements. It is a single track road with no passing points, and therefore at times traffic will back up possibly onto the main road. At times the track is gridlocked due to the amount of traffic entering or leaving the farm, making it impossible to access their property. Many years ago there was little traffic using the track but the business of LHF has increased to such an extent that their peace and enjoyment has suffered, and they have been forced to use calming measures on the track. The track emerges onto Wilpshire Road, which is used as a “rat run” at peak times by traffic seeking to avoid the Whitebirk roundabout congestion and along which traffic travels at fast speed creating a hazard to emerging traffic. In the past, speeding vehicles have left the road near to this point. If this application is to go forward it should be on the basis of a completely separate access unique to the applicant, with appropriate passing places and emerging at a safer point than the existing junction. LHF have indicated that a road direct from the farm to Wilpshire Road would be expensive and not acceptable to the Planning Department. When they moved to Close Nook Cottage 11 years ago, the farm was used for disabled riding only, and they never had a problem with this. However, they feel that it is only over the last 5 years that LHF has been used for people other than the disabled. They base this on the amount of traffic which has dramatically increased in the last 5 years. The applicant’s advert in Yellow Pages makes no mention of riding for the disabled. Although the applicants have claimed in the local press that they do not wish the farm to become a commercial enterprise, by their own admission this has already been done, and with the increase in activity this is the only conclusion one can come to. There are children from wealthy backgrounds paying for riding lessons at LHF, who are not disabled or from deprived backgrounds. The premises opened as a disabled riding school with planning permission for that use, and must be kept as it was first intended, otherwise it makes a mockery of the planning system. If he wished to extend his house he would need to apply for planning permission, and if he failed to do so he would run the risk of having to change it or take it down. Local farmers have had to apply for planning permission through the proper channels. It is pointless having rules and regulations if when they are broken no action is taken. Everyone has to abide by planning laws and there should be no exceptions to the rules, even for charities. The applicants have admitted that they have allowed able bodied people to use the facility from the beginning, but if they are allowed to continue they will be rewarded for their deceit and unacceptable actions, and it is unreasonable to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness when the applicants openly state that they have breached the planning regulations. The applicants have stated that if the Certificate of Lawfulness is not granted they would have to close down, and if so the fault would lie with the trustees. 3 A letter from a Councillor states that the legal standoff between the applicants and their neighbours is of concern to himself and his fellow Councillors. An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness indicates a breach of planning , if that breach is the expansion of the disabled/disadvantaged classification into a full blown commercial enterprise then he concurs with the view that what the enterprise involves should be clarified before a Certificate is issued. Having read the documentation, he has concluded that the applicants have not made it clear what the enterprise entails. A commercial enterprise would require full and unencumbered access, which he understands involves an ownership dispute, and a Certificate should be withheld until the access problem is resolved. In his view, the applicants should reconsider their position in the light of the above points. Some of the letters submitted by the applicants in evidence express support for the work done by LHF. Relevant policy There are no policy considerations in relation to this application. Observations Planning permission was granted in 1993 for the use of the land and stables for riding for the disabled. Subsequent permissions were granted in 1994, 1998, 2001 and 2005 for improved facilities. All these permissions were subject to a condition restricting use to the disabled, and the applications were made and determined on the basis that the development was for use by the disabled. The activities at the site have expanded considerably in recent years, and now include training, education and therapy, horticulture, farm and nature reserve tours and camping in gypsy caravans.