Horse grazing at Land to the South west of Stonards Hill, Epping

What was proposed

The application sought permission to keep up to eight horses for recreation, with no buildings or other structures proposed.

“No buildings or other structures are proposed as part of this current application as such there would be limited impact upon the character and appearance of the site or the wider setting. There would be no highway safety implications with the development generating only a small number of trips to and from the site.”

“The application seeks permission to keep up a maximum of 8 horses on the land. No buildings or other structures are proposed as part of this development.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The land is rough grassland pasture with trees, hedges and scrub, beside Stonnards Hill and a railway line, within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

“The application site is located to the east of Epping, abutting the settlement to the south and west. To the east of the site is the highway Stonnards Hill and to the south of the site is bounded by a railway line. The site benefits from a right of access from Hartland Road and has…”

“The site is currently rough grassland pasture in places and has a number of trees, hedges and scrub. The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is subject to a number of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). The site is not located within a conservation area and there are no heritage assets close to the site.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The consultees raised no objection overall, subject to measures concerning ecological protection, grazing, fencing, contamination and public rights of way.

“Essex County Council Landscape Officer- No objection subject to sensitive grazing approach and appropriate fencing.”

“The Public Right of Way network is protected by the Highways Act 1980. Any unauthorised interference with any route noted on the Definitive Map of PROW is considered to be a breach of this legislation. The public’s rights and ease of passage over any PROW, shall be maintained free and unobstructed at all times to ensure the continued safe passage of the public on the definitive right of way.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Objections focused on public access, Green Belt use, ecology, trees, safety, fencing, horse numbers, site management and possible future development.

“The development would have a negative impact upon trees, ecology and other habitats. • There would be highway safety implications as a result of the development. • The Council is in receipt of a nomination to make the site a community asset. • The site is used by local residents for the walking of dogs and there would be a conflict in terms of the proposed use.”

“Omission of public rights of way and community Interest. • Safety and security concerns. • Environmental and ecological impact. • Site management and suitability • Lack of basic Infrastructure detail. • Concern over horse numbers. • Likely on-site residency. • Lack of transparency and misleading presentation through omission of on-site details and current use of the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The committee heard from the planning officer, an objector, a town councillor and the ward councillor.

Members considered the proposal

Members discussed the planning merits before voting against the officer recommendation to approve the application.

“The Committee then discussed the planning merits of the application.”

“The Committee then voted against the officer recommendation to approve the application. Reasons for refusal, of the application were proposed, seconded and voted for by the Committee.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted to refuse the application after reasons for refusal were proposed, seconded and supported.

“The Committee voted to REFUSE the application for the following reasons.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found that horse grazing and associated trampling would harm ecologically sensitive grassland and undermine the site’s ecological integrity.

“(1) The proposed development would result in the introduction of horse grazing and associated trampling across ecologically sensitive grassland and ground undermining the ecological integrity of the site.”

Minutes