A2 WA/2012/0579 Use of Polo Practice Ground to Play up to 20

Home , Western Weald

A2 WA/2012/0579 Use of polo practice ground to play up to 20 Cortium Sports Limited competitive polo matches a year at land at 02/04/2012 Barfold Farm, Petworth Road, Haslemere (as amplified by letter received on 5 July 2012) Committee: Southern Area Meeting Date: 08/08/2012

Public Notice Was Public Notice required and posted: N/A Grid Reference: E: 492730 N: 132040

Parish/Town : Chiddingfold Ward : Chiddingfold and Dunsfold Case Officer: Gary Stevens

8 Week Expiry Date 28/05/2012 Neighbour Notification Expiry Date 18/05/2012 Neighbour Notification 20/07/2012 Amended/Additional Expiry Date RECOMMENDATION That, subject to consideration of the comments of the Surrey Wildlife Trust and the County Highway Authority, permission be REFUSED

Location Plan

Site Description

The Barfold Farm Estate lies approximately 3km to the south east of the town of Haslemere and to the south of the Petworth Road (B2131) that links the A286 in the west with the A283 to the east. The Estate occupies a very large area, measuring some 87.4 hectares. The application site itself would occupy an area of 9.52 hectares.

The Estate has been formed from two areas of land. The original Barfold Farm largely lies within Chichester District and West Sussex County. The land to the south of the Petworth Road, which historically formed part the Furnace Place estate and includes the application site, is within the Borough of Waverley and Surrey County.

The site benefits from distant views over the western Weald to the South Downs ridge. The Estate comprises pastureland and woodland with an associated stable yard and residential house and curtilage. The land within the Estate is used for a variety of purposes that comprise agriculture, forestry, equestrian and residential uses.

The application site, as defined by the red line on the submitted site location plan, is located in a large open area surrounded by trees and in the northern section of the site. The areas of woodland around this open area are designated as Ancient Woodland. Lythe Hill Copse runs through the site. No public rights of way cross this section of the Estate.

View south over existing polo practice ground

View north over polo practice ground towards former signal station building

View westbound along Petworth Road from existing access point (prior to tree clearance on highway verge)

View westbound along Petworth Road from existing access point following tree clearance on highway verge

View eastbound along Petworth Road from existing access point

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the use of the existing polo practice ground to play up to 20 competitive polo matches a year.

The applicant has however defined an area that would constitute an area for the parking of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the proposed competitive matches.

No operational development is proposed as part of this application.

Relevant Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision WA/2012/0582 Erection of 60 demountable stables and Under storage barn consideration WA/2012/0581 Change of Use of building to clubhouse Under together with alterations consideration WA/2012/0580 Retrospective application for the Under erection of a barn with alterations to consideration change the use and convert the barn to 20 equestrian loose boxes WA/2012/0578 Construction of a horse exercise track Under consideration WA/2011/1061 Removal of Conditions 3 & 4 of Refused WA/2010/1871 (conditions refer to the 15/08/2011 stationing of vehicles and the holding of Appeal polo practice matches on the site) dismissed 29/12/2011 WA/2011/1060 Variation of Conditions 3 and 4 of Refused WA/2010/1871, (conditions refer to the 12/08/2011 stationing of vehicles and the holding of Appeal allowed polo matches on the site) 29/12/2011 WA/2010/1871 Use of land for mixed use of agriculture, Approved forestry and equestrian (polo) purposes 27/01/2011 WA/2010/1398 Formation of horse exercise track Approved 11/10/2010 WA/2010/1239 Repair of estate track and extension of Refused existing track 17/09/2010 Appeal allowed 10/03/2011 WA/2010/0825 Formation of horse exercise track Refused 15/07/2010 Appeal allowed 04/01/2011

Planning Policy Constraints

Green Belt outside any settlement SPAD Surrey Hills AONB & AGLV Wealden Heaths II SPA 5km Adjacent to an area of Ancient Woodland Adajcent to a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI)

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

Policies C1, C3, C7, C10, D1, D2, D4, D5, D7, RD8, RD13, M2, M14 and HE15 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Policies CS1, CS14, CS15 and CS17 of the Local Development Framework pre-submission Core Strategy 2012

The Council is preparing its Core Strategy setting out the key strategic planning policies for the area up to 2028. Between February and April 2012, the Council consulted on the “Local Development Framework Core Strategy – Revised Preferred Options and Draft Policies”. The Council is now in the process of assessing the outcome from that consultation and deciding what further changes need to be made to the Plan, before it is published. The Council agreed the proposed pre-submission version of the Core Strategy at its meeting on 17 July 2012. The intention is that the Pre-Submission Core Strategy will be published for consultation in August. The intention is that the Core Strategy will then be submitted for Examination in December 2012. As it stands only limited weight can be given to the emerging Core Strategy and its proposed policies. However, this will increase as the Core Strategy progresses through Examination.

Policies SP5, CC1, C3 and C4 of the South East Plan 2009 (subject to the letter to Chief Planning Officers from the Secretary of State dated 27/5/10 regarding abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies)

The South East Plan 2009 is the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East region. Although the Localism Act makes provision for the abolition of regional strategies, until they are formally abolished by Order, they remain part of the development plan. It has been held that the Government’s intention to abolish regional plans could be a material consideration in making development control decisions. The amount of weight that can be attached to this intention is a matter of judgment, given that there are still some matters to be resolved before the Government can initiate the formal process of abolition.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2009-2014

Consultations and Town/Parish Council Comments

County Highway Authority: Not yet received – to be reported orally.

County Archaeologist: Proposal does not involve any significant ground disturbance, therefore no archaeological concerns.

Natural England: No objection in terms of impact of Surrey Hills AONB and recommends reference is made to standing advice in terms of the impact on protected species, local wildlife sites and biodiversity enhancements.

Surrey Wildlife Trust: Provides the following comments on the proposal:

 No ecological information provided in respect of this site (although noted an Ecological Protection Plan was submitted with a previous application) and advises that the Local Authority will find it difficult to adequately assess the impact of the proposal.  Site is immediately adjacent to an area of Ancient Woodland and a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). It will be important to ensure that these areas are adequately buffered from adverse impacts arising from either the construction process or the ongoing use of the exercise track.  The applicant should be required to ensure that no tools, materials, equipment, construction vehicles or waste from the site is stored within the SNCI boundaries or activities carried out immediately adjacent which may disturb flora and fauna.  The woodland should also be protected from accidental pollution from, for example, waste water and bonfires.

Environment Agency: Considers the proposal to have a low environmental risk.

South Downs National Park Authority: Having visited the site notes that the application site would not be visible to the national park and would not infringe upon the two statutory purposes and duty of the South Downs National Park.

Surrey Hills AONB Officer: Provides a number of comments and concerns in respect of the proposed use, which have been summarised below:

 Additional level of activity on the polo ground itself unlikely to significantly affect AONB.  A tournament or competitive use likely to attract additional activity in the locality that would be likely to have a detriment impact upon the character of the protected landscape and its tranquillity.  Starting point for the consideration of the application is an assessment of the Inspector’s reasoning in relation to the recent appeal decision dated 29 December 2011.  Site has a quietness and peacefulness.  Proposal represents a step change in use of the site despite assurances from the applicant that the use will be limited.  Condition requiring matches to be attended by friends and family only, as suggested by the applicant, would be unenforceable.  If competitive matches were to be granted it may to lead to future pressure to increase the number of matches, which could prove difficult to resist.  Incremental nature of the proposal, without the benefit of an overall master plan a concern.  Many polo grounds have white railings, score boards and temporary advertising, which may prove difficult to resist once the use of the site for competitive matches is established and are likely to have a significant visual impact on the AONB.

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE): Disputes claims that the entrance to the site from the busy Petworth Road enjoys good visibility, as reflected in the high number of traffic accidents. Horse transporters travelling at slow speeds likely to be a highway hazard.

Chichester District Council: Provides the following comments on the proposal:

 Approximately half the estate lies within Chichester District and the South Downs National Park.  Chichester District Council is currently considering a planning application for the partial use of a storage barn as offices.  Concern the proposal will result in extra activity in terms of players, staff, visitors and general activity in the southern half of the estate within the National Park, which would be detrimental to visual amenity and the tranquil rural character of the area.  Refers to the need to conserve and enhance the natural environment highlighted within the NPPF.  Considers the proposal would result in a high level of activity within the national park, which would conflict with the objectives of the NPPF.

Chiddingfold Parish Council: No objection, subject to conditions controlling the number and timing of matches; that matches are not to be publicly advertised; no public address system; limitations on the duration containers and lorries can remain on the site; and for the views of the County Highway Authority to be sought in relation to the implications of large HGVs accessing the site from a highway safety perspective.

The Parish Council has however made further representation in a letter dated 18 July 2012. Further to this meeting the Parish Council has requested that if the Council is minded to grant planning permission for this proposal that it only be on a temporary basis with a further review undertaken prior to any granting of permanent permission. Conditions are also requested so to require additional native boundary planting, for additional signage to be displayed along the B2131 to draw attention to the access point, for no HGV signs to be installed at the entrances of Pook Hill, Killinghurst Lane and West End Lane, and for visiting players to be given specific directions on how to approach the site.

Haslemere Town Council: Objects to the application on the following grounds:

 Site is in a quiet rural area, in the Green Belt, AONB and AGLV.  Considers the B2131 to be unsuitable for the volume of traffic and large equine transport vehicles associated with the proposed development and a danger to residents.  Echo the views of the Planning Inspector who considered an appeal in 2011 and said that the scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, detracts from the openness of the Green Belt and represents an encroachment into the countryside.  Likely to lead to applications to allow the public to access the site on match days.

Lurgashall Parish Council: Objects to the application on the following grounds:

 Proposal could result in a very substantial development within the Borough of Waverley.  Adverse impact on the visual amenity of the South Downs National Park.  Requests Waverley Borough Council gives due consideration to the development that has taken place on parts of the site within the neighbouring District of Chichester.  Whether the need for the development justifies the substantial adverse impact on the Green Belt, AONB and AGLV.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer (Pollution Control): No objection.

Representations

55 letters of representation, including letters from the Haslemere Society and the Haslemere Educational Museum, have been received objecting and raising concerns in respect of the proposal. A summary of the points raised is as follows:

 Highway safety concerns from additional traffic utilising the sub-standard access onto Petworth Road and surrounding road network.  Increase pressure for on-street parking in the area.  Additional noise and disturbance to people living in the vicinity caused by helicopters arriving and tannoy systems.  Proposals are not small in scale as required for non-commercial horse related development.  History of unauthorised activity on this site.  Significant potential for high numbers of spectators in addition to the people directly associated with the conducting of the polo matches.  Inability to control numbers of spectators and that these will be limited to friends and family only.  Significant increase in the intensity of the use of the site.  Encroachment on the countryside leading to a harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt and character and tranquillity of the Surrey Hills AONB.  Number of previous proposals rejected on this site.  Insufficient notification of local residents and residents living in Haslemere.  Removal of trees on the site has already occurred.  Unclear who the applicant is.  Reference made to previous comments by Planning Inspector in respect of the impact of the development on the Green Belt and AONB/AGLV.  Potential for vehicles using the site to damage neighbouring property.  Conflict with Local Plan policies C1, C3, C10, D1, RD1, RD7, RD8, RD13 and RD14.  Adverse impact on local wildlife and nearby Site of Nature Conservation Importance.  Cumulative and incremental effect of the five current planning applications needs to be considered.  Lack of detail in respect of associated infrastructure and servicing required in connection with proposed development.  No archaeological survey has been conducted. Proposal has the potential to affect archaeological remains in the area.  Exacerbate local flooding problems.  Comparisons with other polo sites unreasonable.  Large quantities of mud likely to be deposited on the highway.  The land should be restored to its former use.

Determining Issues

 Principle of development  Whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt  Effect on the natural beauty and landscape character of the Surrey Hills AONB and AGLV and the setting of the South Downs National Park  Effect on neighbouring amenity  Highway safety  Archaeological issues  Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010  Flooding  Effect on trees  Contaminated land  Effect on the SPA  Other matters  Conditions

Planning Considerations

Principle of development

On the 27 March 2012, the Government has adopted its National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document has superseded the majority of previous national planning policy guidance/statements (with the exception of PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) and condensed their contents into a single planning document. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, still requires all applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the South East Plan 2009 therefore remain the starting point for the assessment of this proposal.

The NPPF is however a material consideration in the determination of this case. Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF make clear that where a local authority does not possess a development adopted since 2004, due weight may only be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of conformity with the NPPF.

In this case the application site is located in the Green Belt and the Surrey Hills AONB and AGLV. Having regard to the requirements of the Development Plan policies, it is considered that these particular planning policies possess a good degree of conformity with the NPPF and as such can still be afforded significant weight.

It is should be noted that this proposal is one of five current planning applications. While it is important to consider each proposal on its merits, these current applications are material considerations. Consideration has therefore been given to the cumulative overall effect of the decisions made in respect of each of these applications.

The applicant is seeking planning permission so to allow competitive matches to be held on the site. This follows a successful appeal made in response to the Council’s refusal of planning application WA/2011/1060 (appeal ref: APP/R3650/A/11/2160055). The appeal decision granted planning permission for a variation of Conditions 3 and 4 of application WA/2010/1871 so to allow the stationing of vehicles in a defined location within the site and the holding of polo practice matches on the site and ball and stick practice. It has been noted that no limit on the number of practice matches or number of potential spectators was imposed as part of this permission.

The proposal would not conflict with the equestrian land use permitted under the land use plan referred to in Condition 1 of the planning permission granted under application WA/2010/1871. However, the proposal does represent a material intensification in the use of the site over and above that permitted and controlled by Condition 4 of the appeal decision granted under application WA/2011/1060. In addition, as this application seeks full planning permission, the holding of practice matches granted under the previous appeal would not be affected (as confirmed by the applicant’s agent’s letter of 5 July). It is therefore conceivable that if permission was to be granted, competitive and practice matches could both be held on the site (although not at the same time due to there only being one levelled area suitable for use as a polo pitch). The level of activity on the site would therefore be more frequent and intensive.

Whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan and the NPPF lists the various forms of development that may be considered in the Green Belt. Development that does not fall within these exception criteria is however considered inappropriate development and harmful by definition.

Local Plan Policy C1 and paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that other operations, such as material changes of use of land, are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The five purposes of including land within the Green Belt are defined in the Local Plan and the NPPF as:

 To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;  To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;  To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;  To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and  To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

It is also recognised that paragraph 81 of the NPPF, states that local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as providing opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation. It is however important to bear in mind that any such enhancements must be balanced against the objectives of other relevant planning policies.

In addition to allowing the appeal made in response to the Council’s refusal of application WA/2011/1060, a second appeal was made following the refusal of application WA/2011/1061. This application sought permission for the removal of conditions 3 and 4 of applied to application WA/2010/1871, which would have allowed polo of all forms to take place on the site in an unrestricted manner. Both of these appeal decisions are highly material to this case, given that the Inspector’s considerations relate to similar matters to those relevant to this case.

In paragraph 9 of the appeal decision, the Inspector found that the holding polo practice matches themselves would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The applicant has explained in their letter of 5 July that a competitive match would be officiated by two mounted umpires, an off field umpire, four goal judges and score board operator. In light of the Inspector’s remarks, the presence these eight additional people, compared with that which would occur in a practice match situation, would not in itself amount to amount to a material intensification of use likely to cause harm to the Green Belt countryside.

More of a concern is the associated activities related to holding competitive polo matches. The applicant is responsible for managing and arranging sponsorship for the Silver Spring 1870 Polo Team as well as the management of the facilities on which they play. The team is not currently based at the site, although this appears to be the intention pending the outcome of these applications. The Silver Spring 1870 polo team play at a “High Goal” level and competes in many national and international tournaments. The team recently won the 2012 Veuve Clicquot Gold Cup (a high profile polo event) held at the nearby Cowdry Park. Competitive matches would take place during 18 weeks of the polo season, which runs from 1 May to 31 August. The hosting of 20 competitive matches would therefore on average amount to slightly more than 1 match per week.

The applicant anticipates that up to 75 people would be likely to attend competitive matches taking place on the site and that spectators would be limited to “friends and family” only. While there is no regulatory framework stipulating the need for certain facilities to be provided depending on the quality of competition being played, this figure nonetheless appears to be somewhat arbitrary with no direct comparisons or empirical evidence provided in respect of how other similar facilities in the area operate. It is also unclear how the Council could practically enforce any operation limiting spectators to friends and family only. In any event, if a means of limiting spectators to friends and family were found, it is likely that the increasing popularity of the sport combined with the success of the Silver Spring 1870 polo team would encourage future proposals to allow attendance by the general public, which could prove difficult to resist once the principle of competitive matches has been established.

In view of the lack of clarity on this point from the applicant, officers have taken informal advice from another polo club, which is based in the Borough just outside the settlement of Ewhurst. Officers have been advised that for any given match at this other polo club generally a minimum of 100 people are in attendance and considerably more for a high profile, sponsored match. While facilities vary between polo clubs and in the case referred to are more extensive than those that would be available at Barfold Farm, it would nevertheless seem that the applicant has under-estimated the likely number of people who would wish to visit the site.

It would not seem unreasonable to expect that a highly successful competitive sports team would attract a significant amount of public interest as well as high profile sponsorship and associated hospitality facilities. Such activities and facilities, while temporary (and potentially exempt from planning control), would have a far greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt over and above the already permitted situation. Combined with the cumulative effect of the proposals subject to the other planning applications set out above that are under consideration, officers consider this significantly intensify the use of the site.

In paragraph 10 of his decision, the previous Planning Inspector recognised that the stationing of vehicles and horse boxes “could potentially encroach on the countryside, depending on the frequency and duration that the site is used”. As has been noted above, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment is one of the five purposes that land is included within the Green Belt. The applicant has submitted a parking layout plan with the application, which correlates the plan that formed part of the appeal allowed under application WA/2011/1060. The parking layout plan shows some 72 cars and 9 larger transporter vehicles being contained in the defined area. The indicative circular layout however appears to leave very large gaps between the parked vehicles and would again seem to be a conservative estimate of the potential capacity of this area.

Combined with the ability of the applicant to continue to hold practice matches as well as ball and stick practice, it is considered that the intensity of use and associated activities linked to competitive matches would result in unacceptable harm to the Green Belt’s openness and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Consequently, the proposal is found to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Local Plan policy C1 and the requirements of Section 9 of the NPPF.

Effect on the natural beauty and landscape character of the Surrey Hills AONB and AGLV and the setting of the South Downs National Park

In addition to the adverse effect on the Green Belt, consideration has also been given to the impact on the Surrey Hills AONB and AGLV as well as the setting of the South Downs National Park, which lies to the south of the site.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are afforded the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF reaffirms this by stating that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty” in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy C3 of the Local Plan states that development inconsistent with this primary aim will not be permitted, unless proven national interest or alternative sites have been explored. The policy goes on to state that small scale development for outdoor recreation may be acceptable provided it does not adversely affect the landscape character and tranquillity of the AONB.

It is acknowledged that the site cannot be easily viewed from public vantage points. This helps to limit the impact on the AONB to a certain extent. However, as confirmed by paragraph 13 of the appeal decision for applications WA/2011/1060 & WA/2011/1061, it is nevertheless important to consider the impact on the intrinsic character of the AONB/AGLV irrespective of whether the site can been seen from the public domain. The previous Planning Inspector has accepted the impact of practice matches and the associated activities would not cause material harm to the AONB/AGLV due to their limited, transient nature. However, paragraph 19 of the appeal decision states “without a condition which restricts the use of the equestrian areas to practice purposes, there is a risk of a substantial increase in the level of activity occurring at the site. This would [emphasis added] be harmful to the character and appearance of the AONB/AGLV and contrary to WBLP Policy C3”. Whilst it is important to consider any application on its own merits, the views of the Inspector are highly material to this proposal.

The Surrey Hills AONB Officer has raised an objection in respect of the proposal supporting the concerns set out above. In addition, concern has been raised in respect of impact of competitive matches on the tranquillity of the AONB. The applicant has confirmed that loud speaker public address systems would not be used, which could be controlled through the use of planning conditions. More difficult to control would be other associated activities, such as spectators potentially arriving by helicopter and larger volumes of traffic than what is currently likely to occur on the site. There is also some sympathy with the Surrey Hills AONB Officer’s concerns with the incremental intensification that is occurring as a result of continual planning applications. The more intense level of activity on the site that would, as has already been explained, be likely to occur through competitive matches would be also be likely to detract from peaceful rural environment characteristic of this area.

Combined with the concerns in relation to the impact on the intrinsic character and appearance of the AONB, it is concluded that the proposal would result in unacceptable material harm on this protected landscape and adversely affect its tranquillity. In line with the guidance contained in the NPPF, great weight has been attributed to this harm. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policy C3, the Core Principles (as listed in paragraph 17) and paragraphs 114-115 of the NPPF, and Policy LU3 of the Surrey Hills Management Plan 2009-2014.

The South Downs National Park Authority considers the site would not be visible from within the Park boundary and therefore raise no objection. Officers have no reason to disagree with this assessment.

Effect on neighbouring amenity

In terms of the effect upon the amenities of local residents, the most relevant impact is likely to be in relation to noise and disturbance associated with the activities taking place on site and from vehicles moving to and from the site. The site is located in a rural area that is sparsely populated by residential properties.

Whilst officers do have concerns in respect of the proposal affecting the tranquillity of the AONB, it is more difficult to demonstrate that particular local residents would be likely to suffer unacceptable levels of disturbance. As mentioned above, planning conditions could be imposed to restrict the use of loud speaker public address systems. Combined with the lack of any empirical evidence to the contrary, officers are satisfied that the level of noise and disturbance associated with competitive polo matches is unlikely to be so great as to culminate in material harm.

Highway safety

It is noted from the letters of representation received that matters of highway safety are a significant concern for local residents. The particular focus of concern has been whether the increase in the volume of traffic that would be using the existing access onto the Petworth Road and the local road network would prejudice highway safety.

The Petworth Road is a ‘B Class’ road (B2131) that is subject to a 40 mile per hour speed limit. The applicant has submitted plans illustrating the level of visibility that would be available to vehicles using the existing access point. The applicant has also conducted a speed survey of vehicles passing the access point. The County Highway Authority has conducted its own speed survey in order to verify the applicant’s findings.

At the time of preparation of the report, discussions regarding the highway safety matters were still taking place between the County Highway Authority and the applicant in order to ensure that the access point from Petworth Road is of a standard that would safely allow the egress of vehicles to and from the public highway. An oral update will be made on this matter to the meeting.

Archaeological issues

The site not within an Area of High Archaeological Potential. Local archaeological information provided by the Haslemere Educational Museum however, indicates that there may be interest in the general area, with the suggestion that structural remains and pottery of Roman date been noted nearby and that significant quantities of Mesolithic and Neolithic flintwork have also been recovered in the past.

The County Archaeologist has been consulted on the application and is of the view that since the proposal does not result in significant ground disturbance; it is unlikely that competitive polo matches would harm archaeological remains that may exist on the site.

Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010

The NPPF states that the Planning System should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts upon biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

When determining planning application, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:  If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigates, or, as a last resort, compensated for then planning permission should be refused.

In addition, Circular 06/2005 states ‘it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted.’

The woodland areas immediately to the north and east of the site are designated as Ancient Woodland. The strip of land approximately 80 metres to the north of the site and known as Lythe Hill Copse is identified as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). In order to ensure these areas are adequately buffered from adverse impacts arising from the use of the site during competitive matches, the applicant has submitted an ecological survey for the site. At the time of writing, the Surrey Wildlife Trust had yet to confirm whether these measures were appropriate. Officers are however satisfied that subject to the views of the Wildlife Trust and the imposition of conditions requiring the recommended mitigation measures to be implemented, the proposal would be unlikely to harm any protected species or their habitats on and around the site.

Flooding

The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment with their application. This information has been scrutinised by the Environment Agency who have concluded that they have no objection to the proposal. In light of this technical advice, officers are satisfied that the proposal would be unlikely to contribute towards or be unacceptably affected by local flood risk.

Effect on trees

During the course of the application, the applicant has felled a number of trees on the site frontage adjacent to the existing access onto the Petworth Road so to improve the visibility splays for the access point. These trees were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order and the site does not lie within a conservation area. The Council therefore possessed no control in respect of these tree works. The land where the trees were growing is however owned by the County Highway Authority, who at the time had not given consent for the works to be conducted. This is however a matter for the Highway Authority and does not prejudice the determination of the application. Conditions could also be imposed if deemed necessary so to offset the previous loss of trees from the site.

Other than these works the proposed use would have no effect on any other significant trees or areas of Ancient Woodland on and around the site.

Contaminated land

The site is not identified as potentially contaminated. What is more, as has been noted in the archaeology section above, the proposal would not involve any significant ground disturbance. The proposal would therefore be unlikely to result in any threat to human health from potential contaminants.

Effect on the SPA

As the site is not located within an SPA and given the proposal would not involve individual permanently living on the site, it is not likely to result in a material increase in the number of people and therefore would not have any significant effect upon the integrity of the SPA.

Other matters

Careful consideration has been given to the concerns of local residents and interested third parties. Having reviewed each of these comments, it would appear that many of the points raised in the letters of representation received have either been addressed in the considerations above or have been made in respect of the other proposals currently under consideration.

The concern regarding the lack of a name for the individual who owns the site is not a material planning issue. In any event, it is acceptable for a company name to be given as the applicant for the purposes of the validation of a planning application.

Concerns regarding damage to neighbouring property and the depositing of mud on the public highway are not matters that can be resolved through the planning system but are civil matters or the responsibility of the County Highway Authority.

Conditions

In accordance with the guidance contained in Circular 11/95, consideration has been given to the use of planning conditions that could be used so to overcome the harm that has been identified. This has included limiting the number of spectators allowed on site at any one time, reducing the number of permitted competitive matches as well as consideration of the use of a temporary planning permission so to allow the impact of the use to be gauged over a limited period.

In terms of limiting the numbers of spectators allowed on site at any one time, it is noted that Barfold Farm benefits from two access points, one on Petworth Road that is in Waverley Borough and the other along Tennyson’s Lane that falls within Chichester District. The applicant is currently in the process of constructing an estate track that links the main Barfold Farm complex in Chichester to the Petworth Road. As the site benefits from two different access points which straddle two administrative areas, it is not possible for the Council to impose conditions so to fully control the numbers of persons entering and exiting the access points. Combined with the vast size of the Barfold Farm estate, it is considered that a condition limiting the numbers of spectators on site at any one time would be unenforceable from a planning point of view. Similarly, limiting spectators to “family and friends” only is considered to be too vague a definition so to limit spectators to these people. This would again render any such condition unenforceable. Such conditions would not therefore address the identified harm.

Consideration has been given to a reduction in the number of competitive matches proposed at this time and whether the use of a temporary permission would be likely to resolve the harm that has been identified. Paragraphs 109, 111 and 112 of Circular 11/95 offer guidance on the use of temporary conditions where a trial run of particular development may be warranted. Trial runs are however only appropriate where the Local Planning Authority is uncertain as to the likely impact of a proposal. Officers are satisfied that the identified harm is likely to be both immediate and would be likely to increase over time as the site become more established and well known. In addition, the Council is not convinced that other controls could be put in place so to limit fundamental contributing factors that have lead to the conclusion the proposal results in harm. The use of a temporary planning permission condition would not therefore be particularly beneficial in revealing the true impact of the proposal.

Conclusion

Officers conclude that the proposal would result in unacceptable material harm to the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore considered to constitute inappropriate development. Substantial weight is therefore attached to the harm by way of inappropriateness.

In addition, the proposal would also cause material harm to the intrinsic natural beauty, landscape character, appearance and tranquillity of the Surrey Hills AONB and AGLV.

Officers also conclude that the cumulative effect of the implementation of this proposal in conjunction with the other planning applications under consideration on the Barfold Farm estate would worsen the severity of the harm that has been identified as part of this proposal.

The proposal fails to strike a suitable balance between enhancing the outdoor recreational value of the site and conserving the character and appearance of the rural environment. Officers also find that the identified harm is not outweighed by the enhanced recreational value of the site and could not be overcome through the use of planning conditions.

The other matters set out above have been carefully considered and are not considered to result in such harm as to be considered material. This does not however outweigh the other harm that has been identified.

Recommendation

That, subject to consideration of the comments of the Surrey Wildlife Trust and the County Highway Authority, permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Reason The proposal, by virtue of the increased intensity of use and associated activities linked to competitive polo matches, would adversely affect and materially harm the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and conflicts with national and local planning policies regarding Green Belts set out in Policy C1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2. Reason The site lies within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) within which the area's distinctive landscape character and natural beauty is to be conserved and enhanced. The proposal, by virtue of the increased intensity of use and associated activities linked to competitive polo matches, is inconsistent with this aim and would cause material harm to the intrinsic landscape character and natural beauty of the AONB and AGLV. Such harm conflicts with the national, strategic and local policy guidance and advice as set out in Policies C3 and RD13 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002, the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy LU3 of the Surrey Hills Management Plan 2009-2014.

Informative

1. The drawing numbers relevant to this decision are:

- WAV/226/IE/001 - Location plan as existing - WAV/226/IE/0010 - Proposed block plan - WAV/224/IE/0011 - Block plan - parking - WAV/226/IE/003 - Sightlines plan - WAV/226/IE/004 - Access plan - Drawing 01 - Vehicle Swept Path Assessment