Private equestrian facilities at Valley Cottage Hatcliffe Road West Ravendale

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the private equestrian use acceptable and the reduced, repositioned stable block modest, traditional and sufficiently related to the dwelling.

“Highways and Parking 5. Drainage and Flood Risk 1. Principal of Development The proposal is for the development on land at Valley Cottage, Hatcliffe Road, to change the use of the land to a paddock and erect a stable building. This would be for private use only for the occupier of the adjacent dwelling.”

“Indeed, an equestrian use is most suited to an open countryside location. A stable is akin to the use of the paddock and provides the facilities required for such a use. The scale of the proposed stable block has also been raised as a concern and its prominence in the local area. However, it is considered that the size and scale of the stable block is relatively modest being single storey and not extensive in ground area.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The protected landscape consultee raised concerns about scale, excavation, habitats, water quality, urbanisation, visual impact and lighting, while residents raised wider landscape, access, drainage and amenity concerns.

“Lincolnshire Wolds National Landscape - Concerns relating to excavation and soil management, potential harm to habitats and water quality, proximity of works, scale of structure, urbanising effect of the proposal, not in-keeping with rural setting, mass of built form not considered to enhance or conserve the National Landscape, potential harm in terms of visual impact and concerns relating to lack of information on lighting.”

Officer report

What people said

The objector said the proposal remained too large and insufficiently justified, while the agent said it was a carefully designed, proportionate and technically acceptable rural facility.

Members’ concerns

Members considered the stable block too large, close to the size of the house, and harmful to the countryside and the National Landscape despite the amendments.

“NO RESTRICTIONS application. Councillor Hudson said that the applicant had approached him and he had told him he needed a good reason to build on open countryside and suggested that he build a wooden stable block set back in the woodland as that way the applicant could keep horses but in time the wooden stable block could be removed and the land could go back to being open countryside. He said that the applicant didn’t want that, he wanted five stables.”

“Councillor Kaczmarek said that he had looked at the previous application that was refused and compared it to the current one and whilst the stable block was proposed to be smaller than the one proposed in the previous application, it was still nearly the size of the house. He said that he had never personally kept a horse but after listening to others that seemed excessive in size.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A member proposed refusal, another member seconded it, and the committee voted unanimously to refuse the application.

“Councillor Batson seconded the proposal to refuse the application.”

“(Note - the committee voted unanimously for the application to be refused.)”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found that the development would harm the countryside through its size and visual impact, damaging the character of the National Landscape.

“Councillor Hudson stated that he agreed with the Lincolnshire Wolds protected landscape officer in that the application would not enhance the landscape and would instead cause harm.”

“[name withheld] stated that based on the debate, members were concerned that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the countryside and that the size of the building would have an adverse visual impact and would be detrimental to the character of the national landscape which was in contrary to policies five and forty two of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes