Agenda item

22/00499/FUL - Land Rear of 10 Hill Close, Peckleton

Application for the construction of stables and change of use of land to equestrian use (re-submission of 22/00092/FUL)


Late items received after preparation of main agenda:




Following Committee in February the revised plans were submitted just before the agenda was published. Since then the County Ecologist has confirmed that the proposed mitigation strategy is acceptable and that there is plenty of scope for biodiversity enhancements to be undertaken which can be secured via condition. As a minimum this should include bird boxes or swallow cups on the new stables and native species planting and as a preference a grassland buffer around the site.


The agent has confirmed that the applicant is Mr Colin Cately, whose partner and daughter own the horses that are to be stabled.


Four additional representations objecting to the development have been submitted from neighbours.


It is pointed out that while the area of the storeroom has been reduced by 22% the volume of the building has only been reduced by between 8 and 9% and that the building remains significantly larger than would normally be needed to keep two horses and includes a completely unnecessary store area. It is also claimed that the stables will be seen from Desford and from Archers Lane.


In response it is pointed out that, as those members who attended the site visit will have seen the site is surrounded by higher ground on three sides – to the north, east and south. It is not considered that the stables would be seen from Desford and views from Archers Lane, which runs both to the north and west of the site and is no closer than 500 metres of the site at its closest point, will either be dominated by the dwellings of Hill Close which sits on considerably higher ground or are obscured by trees, hedgerows or buildings as the lane runs from north to west of the site.


With regard to the size of the buildings it is pointed out that the size of the individual stables is set out by the British Horse Society and that the proposed stables meet those standards and so reducing them in size would, depending on the size of the horse, conflict with that advice. Separate areas for the storage of hay and feed are commonly included in applications for stables as is a separate area for the storage of tack and associated equipment. It is incorrect therefore to describe the storeroom as unnecessary.


Officers have studied all similar applications for the construction of stables that were received in 2022. Of these four were approved and two refused. The two refused were for buildings significantly larger than the current proposal. All four that were approved were for more stables than are proposed by the current application with two being of similar proportions and two being substantially bigger.


Reference is made in two of the objections to the Committee’s suggestion that a more natural materials is used. One objection refers to a metal building with a shiny metal roof.


It is pointed out that the materials for cladding the building were changed from metal to timber a long time ago. The applicant has agreed that a dark green bitumen coated roof material, standardly used on stables, would also be acceptable. Thatch is not considered appropriate.


The objection also makes reference to the difference in horses being allowed to graze and permission being granted for them to engage in riding and showjumping.


In response it is pointed out at paragraph 8.13 seeks to explain the difference between the grazing of horses on the site, which does not require permission, and the stabling and feeding or horses which does require permission. This application does not grant permission for horses to be ridden or for horses to jump fences – it would simply allow the paddock to be used by horses where that use is such that as it is not simply horses grazing for which permission is not required. The riding of horses does not require permission and nor does riding them as they jump over fences – this could take place at any time on the land without the need for planning permission.


It is again considered worthy of pointing out that the use of the land to the west and east of the site as gardens has been undertaken without planning permission having been granted first. All the houses on Hill Close were built with much smaller gardens and all the land to the rear was agricultural and while neighbours are greatly concerned with regard to the effect of stables being constructed in the countryside there is noticeably less concerned about the effect on the intrinsic value, beauty and character of the countryside that is caused by the garden extensions and the domestic paraphernalia that goes along with that.


Another objection states that the building has not been reduced in size – as is pointed out at paragraph 2.4 of the main report this is not correct.


No other new issues are raised.





The following additional conditions are proposed:


6.      The development hereby approved shall be implemented in strict accordance with the mitigation measures stated in Section 4 (Discussion and Recommendations) of the great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Assessment by Fauna Forest Ecology dated January 2023.


7.      The stables hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a biodiversity enhancement scheme has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Enhancements shall include, but not be limited to, the incorporation of bird boxes and native planting. Any enhancement measures need to be shown on all relevant submitted plans/elevations. Such measures as are approved shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the stables being brought into use.


8.      The paddocks shall be used by those horses referred to in Condition 5 only.


The recommendation remains one of approval.


Application for construction of stables and change of use of land to equestrian use (resubmission of 22/00092/FUL).


In presenting the report, and amendment to condition 5 was recommended to restrict use of the site and building for the applicant’s family’s horses only and for ancillary storage and for no events for commercial or industrial purposes, including as livery stables.


An objector, the agent and the ward councillor spoke on this application.


It was moved by Councillor Allen and seconded by Councillor Hodgkins that permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. Councillor Bray proposed an amendment that the Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to grant permission following negotiations to reduce the size of the tractor storage. Councillor Allen and Councillor Hodgkins accepted the amendment and added a request that alternative roofing material be explored.


Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was




(i)            Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant permission following discussions with the applicant with regard to the size of the tractor storage and roofing materials and subject to:


a.    the conditions contained in the officer’s report and late items;


b.    an amendment to condition 5 to restrict use of the site and building for the applicant’s family’s horses only and for ancillary storage and for no events for commercial or industrial purposes, including as livery stables.


(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted authority to determine the final wording of the planning conditions.

Supporting documents: