Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

Application Number 10/01321/AS

Location Churchlands Farm, Church Road, Stone, , , TN30 7JT

Grid Reference 94133/27338

Parish Council Stone-Cum-Ebony

Ward Isle of Oxney

Application Demolition of farm buildings and erection of holiday Description accommodation with associated equestrian facilities comprising 3 no. holiday lets, stable block and change of use of land for the keeping of horses

Applicant Mr T Piper, Owley Farm, Acton Lane, Wittersham, Tenterden, Kent, TN30 7HL

Agent Mrs H Whitehead, Price-Whitehead Chartered Surveyors & Rural Consultants, Forstal Farm, Tenterden, Kent, TN30 7DF

Site Area 0.23 Hectares

(a) 3/1R 5S (b) S (c) EH – X, KHS – X, SEETB - S, NFU – S, RPL - X

Introduction

1. The application is being reported to the Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Member, Councillor Burgess. Site and Surroundings

2. The application site comprises a parcel of land forming part of Churchlands Farm, an agricultural holding totalling 34ha. The applicant also owns an additional 625ha and farms an additional 827ha, totalling 1486ha. The site is located outside the built confines of Stone within landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and adjacent to the Stone-in- Oxney Conservation Area (CA). The site is located towards the brow of a hill which rises up from the Royal Military Canal, to the south of the site, which forms the boundary of the AONB and the extensive area of Romney Marsh, where the surrounding land is generally flat and open in nature. Views of the 10.1 - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

site and its existing agricultural buildings are gained from the Military Road area, which runs alongside the Canal and further away on Romney Marsh. Within the site are a number of redundant agricultural buildings, including two portal framed buildings, one of which is fire damaged, a portacabin and a brick building. Public footpath (AT108) runs to the rear of the site.

3. A site plan is attached to this report as Annex 1. Proposal

4. The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing agricultural buildings and the erection of two detached L shaped buildings creating three holiday units, a stable block, comprising four stables and a tack room, and the change of use of the land for the keeping of horses.

5. The larger of the two buildings is two storey and would contain one 3 bed and one 2 bed unit and the other single storey building would contain a single two 2 bed unit. The detached buildings would occupy a similar footprint as the existing farm buildings and their design and articulation reflects that of converted farm buildings. Their elevations would be weatherboard under a tiles roof.

6. The intention with the provision of stabling is to enable guests to either bring their own horses with them on holiday or to hire farm owned horses and ponies.

7. The existing agricultural access would remain and the proposal makes provision for a number of off-road parking spaces, as well as a turning circle and parking area for horseboxes.

8. Under the heading of a Business Plan, the agent has submitted 3 year projected figures of the likely income generated from the venture. It concludes that the net profit will represent approximately 18% of the gross profit of the Estate, which would contribute a valuable element of profit, to alleviate any fears over reduction in subsidies, together with the creation of additional work, as a result of a business enterprise.

9. The submission includes ecology and contamination reports. The ecology report did not record any protected plant species or the presence of badgers on the site and concluded that there are no overriding ecological constraints that would prevent the development from going ahead. It did, however, recommend a number of mitigation measures, as follows: • vegetation to be removed from the site outside of the breeding season or checked in advance of removal by an experienced Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) at the very least;

10.2 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

• demolition of particular buildings under the supervision of a ECoW to be conducted during the spring or autumn; and, • measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site, such as additional hedgerow planting and the provision of bird and bat boxes.

10. In support of the application, the applicant’s agent makes the following points: • the farm buildings are smaller than those required for modern farming operations and are remote to the core farming unit at Owley Farm; • alternative uses of the farm buildings have been sought, including their replacement and commercial letting, however, these were limited due to the condition and configuration of the buildings and marketing has been unsuccessful - holiday letting is the only viable option and will enable the Estate to create a development which generates diversified income, in addition to the core agricultural business; • the built development would utilise a similar footprint and volume to the current arrangement, which will offer aesthetic and landscape improvement given the design and materials proposed, as well as supporting the rural economy, creating a sustainable holiday resource and providing a niche market opportunity for the farm business; • the replacement buildings will be less prominent than those which currently exist and the prominence of the site will be reduced by the materials proposed and landscaping measures, which will also enhance opportunities for wildlife; • the site is perfectly located for walking and equestrian activity holidays and countryside breaks; • the provision of stabling will create a scheme offering a niche market and added value and using farm supplied horses or ponies will increase the income stream generated from the venture and will create new opportunity for local employment; • the site is very near a bus route; • there is ample parking provided by the site; • the site is ideal as it will not cause nuisance to neighbours; • the design promotes the appearance of converted farm buildings and will be in keeping with and physically enhance the landscape; • all soiled stable bedding will be mucked out onto a trailer, parked in a designated position, and this will be routinely removed from the site and taken to Owley Farm; • new hedge and tree planting to the south-eastern boundary will break the form and appearance of the replacement buildings, further enhancing the landscape;

10.3 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

• the development would significantly improve the character of the locality by replacing the deteriorating and fire damages buildings with less visually intrusive and sympathetically designed buildings, retaining the general form and layout and thus the expected appearance of farm buildings; • the site is located within a sustainable location and the development meets the criteria in policy EC12 of PPS4; • the farm buildings are to be replaced with more acceptable structures in terms of sustainable development and construction materials; • the development of the site will not impact upon the adjacent hedgerow; • the proposal will create rural employment, which will directly contribute to the vitality of the rural community and economy; • the proposal will not result in heavy or excessive use by vehicles or any detrimental impact in terms of the use of the highway; • the proposal is small scale; • the site offers good tourism potential given its proximity to the village and other nearby attractions and service centres; • both the applicant and the occupants would make use of local supplies; • the proposal relates to a particular facility required in conjunction with a countryside attraction – the use demands a countryside setting; • to achieve 4 star rating under the Kent Quality Assurance Scheme for Tourism, each bedroom must be ensuite or have its own nearby bathroom and this will ensure the farm can maximise on returns; • the smaller style units ensure a range of facility is offered, maximising on occupancy rates achieved and thus return and income.

11. The submission includes a number of letters of support from various holiday operators. Planning History

12. There is no relevant planning history. Consultations

Ward Member: Cllr Burgess is a member of the Committee and requests the application to be reported to the Planning Committee because of the amount of local interest and professional interest from organisations within the county.

Portfolio Holder – Development Management: comments:

10.4 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

“I agree with the officers’ recommendation for the reasons given in the report and have nothing to add.”

Stone Parish Council: supports the application.

Neighbours: 3 neighbours consulted; 6 representations received, 5 supporting the application on the following grounds: • represents an excellent opportunity for people wishing to bring their own horses on a riding holiday; • there is a need for this kind of enterprise in the area, as nothing like it exists anywhere locally; • it will provide much needed jobs, ensuring local people maintain their jobs and enhancing disposable income, which would help to sustain and develop the village; • the extensive bridal paths would be appreciated by riders; • holiday makers will support local rural businesses, helping to sustain the village by enabling businesses to keep going; • the sustaining and development of job opportunities in the village and its surroundings will help to limit unnecessary car use; • the Chief Executive Officer stresses the importance of the Council working alongside rural business to enable village life to be sustained and developed by ensuring that existing village jobs are kept and enhanced, together with creating new job opportunities; • it demonstrates a large number of examples of best practice both in sustainability terms as well as regeneration and local economy; • it will boost the area for tourism; • it will allow a local and well thought of farmer to diversify and help to keep his business doing well; and • this is a country development that can only add to the local area, providing rural pursuits for tourists and a well maintained pleasing aspect for local people. and 1 objecting to the application on the following grounds: • the development would be a prominent feature; and, • the development would increase traffic, noise and lighting, generating an inappropriate type and amount of traffic on the local rural road network and detrimentally affecting the privacy and enjoyment of neighbouring properties.

Environmental Health: raise no objection provided conditions are imposed relating to the method of sewage disposal and manure storage.

Kent Highway Services: raise no objection, subject to conditions. 10.5 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

Tourism South East: supports the application.

National Farmers Union: supports the application as a method of farm diversification.

Rural Planning Ltd: raise no objection, on the following grounds: • the loss of the site to another use would not adversely impact on the farming operation or generate a requirement for replacement buildings; • the Business Plan suggests that the development would be capable of making a useful contribution to overall farm profits; and, • the development would potentially fit well in with the context of the farm business Planning Policy

13. The Development Plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan, May 2009), the saved policies in the adopted Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, the adopted LDF Core Strategy 2008 and the adopted Ashford Town Centre Action Area Plan 2010.

14. The relevant policies from the Development Plan relating to this application are as follows:-

South East Plan 2009 CC1 – Sustainable development. C3 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. C4 – Landscape and countryside management. TSR2 – Rural tourism.

Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000 GP12 – Protecting the countryside and managing change. EN16 – Development in Conservation Areas EN30 – Nature conservation sites

Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 CS1 – Guiding Principles CS9 – Design Quality

15. The following are also material to the determination of this application:-

Supplementary Planning Guidance

10.6 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

SPG Note 8 – Stables and Manèges

Government Advice PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 - Transport Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism.

16. The following are also material to the determination of this application:-

Tenterden & Rural Sites DPD TRS2 – New residential development elsewhere TRS14 – Diversifying existing agricultural businesses TRS17 – Landscape character and design

17. Members should note that if regard is had to the Development Plan when determining this application then that determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Assessment

18. The main issues for consideration of this application are: • Principle of development, farm diversification and sustainability. • Impact upon the designated rural landscape. • Impact upon residential amenity. • Impact upon highway safety.

Principle, farm diversification and sustainability

19. As the proposal is being put forward as a farm diversification scheme, there are two issues to consider: firstly, whether the scheme can be considered to be a genuine farm diversification scheme and secondly, whether what is being sought is an acceptable form of farm diversification for this holding and in this particular location.

20. Policy EC7 of PPS4 states that most new economic development should be located in or on the edge of existing settlements in order to meet sustainable development objectives. This objective is further emphasised in its support of

10.7 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

sustainable rural tourism that benefits rural business and which enriches rather than harms the character of the countryside. The site is located away from the main service centres identified in the Core Strategy.

21. That said, PPS7 refers to farm diversification and is supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that contribute to sustainable development objectives and help to sustain agricultural enterprises, and are consistent in their scale with their rural location. PPS4, specific policy EC6, further emphasises tourism development as an appropriate form of diversification on this basis. The above objectives are endorsed by the Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism.

22. Specific policy TRS14 of the Tenterden and Rural Sites Development Plan Document (DPD) states that proposals to diversify existing agricultural businesses in the rural areas are acceptable provided the development does not compromise sustainability objectives and the following criteria are met: a) the principal use and function of the premises remains agricultural; b) the proposals can be justified as part of a long term Business Plan for the business; c) any residential re-use of buildings would be acceptable under the terms of policies TRS2 (and TRS12 or TRS13 where applicable); d) the proposal would have no significant impact on the character of the area, the character of the landscape, the biodiversity of the area of the amenities of any local residents or businesses; and, e) it can be demonstrated that the development will not generate a type or amount of traffic that would be inappropriate to the rural road network that serves it.

Criteria a)

23. The site is an outlying group of agricultural buildings, detached from the core of the farming enterprise, and if converted, these buildings would be taken out of agricultural use. The principal use of the site would no longer remain agricultural under the proposal in terms of both appearance and function. Criterion a) would not therefore be met.

Criteria b)

24. Emphasis is placed in the Business Plan on the projected figures for the new venture, with no back up figures relating to the agricultural holding itself, to demonstrate the farm’s future viability and the role that the development is envisaged to have in supporting the principal agricultural function. Whilst I consider that the development can be considered as farm diversification, I am not convinced that enough information has been provided to demonstrate that 10.8 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

the existing farm enterprise is at risk without exploring new revenue incomes and that essentially, the development is a ‘desire’ as opposed to being essential for the long term viability of the holding. In turn, given the extent of the holding, the application does not demonstrate that if there is a need to diversify, that this development is the best way of achieving this and that it is in the best location, in terms of preserving the character of the countryside. Criterion b) would not therefore be met.

Criteria c)

25. The existing buildings on the site are dilapidated, some of which are fire damaged, and not capable of conversion without complete of substantial rebuilding. Policy TRS14 of the Tenterden and Rural Sites DPD specifically states that schemes requiring the erection of new buildings to accommodate diversification schemes should be avoided, particularly within AONBs, and the justification for new buildings must be clearly set out in the Business Plan, explaining why alternatives are not feasible. If this can be satisfied, then replacement buildings must be of a similar or lesser scale, which would not be the case. An assessment has not been made as to whether the proposed holiday accommodation could be provided within existing buildings elsewhere on the farm. The erection of replacement buildings on the site is therefore unjustified and criterion c) would not be met.

Criteria d)

26. The merits of the scheme in relation to this are discussed later in the later sections of this report.

Criteria e) and Sustainability

27. PPG13 states that with leisure and tourism development that generates significant vehicle movements to and from the site, the Local Planning Authority should consider the need for that facility to be in that location. This is critical in the assessment of the proposal. Whilst the site is located fairly close to Stone, the village has a very limited number of local services and facilities that would be able to serve the needs of three self-catering holiday lets and visitors would have to use their cars to travel to the nearest rural service centres of Rye and Tenterden and to make trips out for the day to attractions etc. Furthermore, the Core Strategy does not identify the village as a suitable area for housing allocation on a hierarchy of settlements suitable form limited expansion and the Tenterden and Rural Sites DPD does not identify the village as being suitable for minor residential development or infilling, implying that Stone is not considered to be a sustainable location.

The site lies in a remote rural area, accessed by country lanes and rural roads and served by infrequent public transport and the development would 10.9 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

increase the scale and nature of the use of the site, which would potentially generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic into and out of the site, and I am of the view that the local rural road network is not suitable to serve the intensified use of the site. Whilst I appreciate that food boxes with produce for local suppliers would be provided upon arrival and the use of local businesses would be promoted, these cannot be insisted upon.

28. The Council’s Economic Development Manager and Tourism, Heritage and Nature Conservation Manager lend their support to the proposed development, this is to be expected as it would provide new tourist accommodation within the area, which would assist with the growth of a rural area and would meet demand within the area. However, they do not make reference to the particular location of the development.

Impact upon visual amenity

29. The development would be seen very clearly from Military Road and the Canal area and from certain vantage points a considerable distance away on Romney Marsh. The footprint of the buildings, particularly House 1 and 2 cover a large area in terms of width and depth and this, in combination with its height, creates a development of a significant bulk, scale and massing which would be extremely prominent within the landscape, resulting in a visually intrusive form of development, harmful to the character and appearance of the rural designated landscape. Furthermore, the proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the adjacent Conservation Area. I appreciate that the intention is for the design and articulation of the proposed buildings to reflect converted farm buildings; however, I consider that this would not override the harm identified above.

30. I acknowledge the applicant’s argument that the development would replace dilapidated farm buildings on the site and whilst their removal would be beneficial to the rural landscape. There is no evidence of real harm caused by the present use of the land and the surrounding landscape is not seriously harmed as a result. The proposed buildings would, however, represent a significant harmful change in the character and appearance of the area. In addition, whilst some additional landscaping is proposed to help mitigate the impact of the structure and encourage wildlife, I consider that this would not override the harm identified above.

31. According to PPS7, equine uses are considered to be appropriate land uses within the countryside, provided that they are not significantly visually intrusive and therefore harmful to the appearance of the countryside. The proposed stable block is of a reasonable size to reflect its function and its proportions and simple design form is appropriate. Given this, I consider that the proposed stable block would not result in a visually intrusive form of development and the proposed development would not be harmful to the 10.10 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

character and appearance of the rural designated landscape or that of the adjacent Conservation Area. However, in the absence of planning support for the holiday accommodation, there is no justification for the stable block or change of use of the land for the keeping of horses.

32. Whilst the development may form part of the long term vision of the farming enterprise, I do not consider this to outweigh its harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Impact upon residential amenity

33. I note the objections raised by the occupier of the neighbouring property, however, given the site’s distance from the nearest neighbouring property, the proposed development would not result in harm to residential amenity.

Impact upon highway safety

34. I note the objection raised by the occupant of the neighbouring property, however, Kent Highway Services raise no objection to the proposal. The plans show that parking spaces for eight cars would be provided on the site, as well as two parking spaces for two horse boxes, and these spaces have been arranged to provide adequate space for turning. I therefore consider that the proposed development would not be harmful to highway safety.

Other matters, including ecology and contamination

35. The ecology report identified no further survey work required but mitigation measures are recommended for breeding birds and bats, along with enhancement measures being recommended for habitats and species, which can be controlled by condition. Furthermore, the findings of the ecology report did not record any protected plant species or the presence of badgers on the site. I therefore consider that the proposed development would not result in harm to local ecology or wildlife.

36. Provided the recommended conditions are proposed, I consider that the development would not result in harm in terms of contamination.

Conclusion

37. This application related to the provision of 3 new dwellings in a remote location that is not considered to be suitable for new residential development, in line with the Core Strategy. The development is only justified by the applicant on the grounds of farm diversification. It has been demonstrated that the development does not meet the requirements of Development Plan policy and if it is essential for the farm’s long term viability, then it could be located elsewhere on the Estate, better related to existing settlements. 10.11 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

Human Rights Issues

38. I have also taken into account the human rights issues relevant to this application. In my view the “Assessment” section above and the Recommendations below represent an appropriate balance between the interests and rights of the applicant (to enjoy his land subject only to reasonable and proportionate controls by a public authority) and the interests and rights of those potentially affected by the proposal (to respect for private life and the home and peaceful enjoyment of their properties). Summary

39. The main issues in this case are:-

(a) Principle, farm diversification and sustainability: the proposed development, poorly served by public transport links and local services, would rely solely on private car use and, as a result, would fail to minimise the number of new car journeys that the site would generate, resulting in a sporadic and unsustainable form of development (TRS12, PPS1, PPS4, PPG13, Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism).

(b) Visual Impact: the proposed holiday let buildings, by virtue of their size, bulk, scale and subsequent massing and their design and form, would represent a visually intrusive form of development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the rural landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (GP12, TRS17, PPS1, PPS4, CS9).

(c) No harm to residential amenity (CS1).

(d) No harm to highway safety (CS1).

(e) No harm to ecology and contamination (EN30, PPS9).

(f) The fact that the proposal represents farm diversification does not outweigh the harm identified in sustainability and visual amenity terms (TRS14, PPS4, PPS7). Recommendation

Refuse

On the following grounds:

The development would be contrary to policies CC1, C3, C4 and TSR2 of the South East Plan (May 2009), policies GP12 and EN27 of the Ashford Borough Local Plan (2000), policies CS1 and CS9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (July 2008), policies TRS2, TRS14 and TRS17 of the Tenterden and Rural Sites 10.12 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 March 2011 ______

Development Plan Document (2009) and to Government guidance contained in PPS1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’, PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development In Rural Areas’, PPG13 ’Transport’ and the Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism and is therefore considered development harmful to interests of acknowledged planning importance for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, located in a remote rural location and poorly served by public transport links and local services, would rely solely on private car use and, as a result, would fail to minimise the number of new car journeys that the site would generate, resulting in a sporadic and unsustainable form of development.

2. As a result of Reason 1, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the character of the adjacent Stone-in- Oxney Conservation Area.

3. The proposed holiday let buildings, by virtue of its size, bulk, scale and subsequent massing and its design and form, would represent a visually intrusive form of development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the rural landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

4. As a consequence of Reasons 1, 2 and 3, the proposed development cannot be considered to be a well conceived farm diversification proposal that will contribute to sustainable development objectives and not result in harm in visual amenity terms. Background Papers

Comments from S Samuels dated 10/11/10 Comments from R A Pudan dated 13/11/10 Comments from G Turnwell dated 16/11/10 Comments from C M Conrath dated 07/12/10 Comments from J Mather dated 21/12/10 Comments from Environmental Health dated 18/10/10 and 26/10/10 Comments from Kent Highway Services dated 19/10/10 Comments from Tourism South East dated 19/10/10 Comments from Stone Parish Council dated 14/11/10 Comments from Cllr Burgess dated 12/12/10 Comments from Harry Purewal dated 06/01/11 Comments from NFU received 13/01/11 Comments from Rural Planning Ltd. received 04/02/11

Contact Officer: Stephanie Viney – Telephone: (01233) 330669 10.13 ______Page 1ofAnnextoReport10/01321/AS Planning Committee9March2011 Ashford BoroughCouncil

______10.14 ______

______Page 2ofAnnex1toReport10/01321/AS Planning Committee9March2011 Ashford BoroughCouncil

______10.15 ______