Agricultural barn extension at Buttons Mead Farm Livery, Buttons Mead Farm, Lingfield

What was proposed

The application proposed extending an agricultural and equestrian barn to provide mechanical equipment storage, with associated landscaping.

“2024/1167 Location: Buttons Mead Farm Livery, Buttons Mead Farm, Tandridge Lane, Lingfield, Surrey, RH7 6LW Proposal: Extension to agricultural/equestrian barn to provide storage for mechanical equipment together with associated landscaping works. Ward: Lingfield and Crowhurst…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a fenced paddock beside the livery’s sand school, within a rural Green Belt area containing agricultural, equestrian and residential uses.

“The application site is a parcel of land on the western side of Tandridge Lane, forming part of Buttons Mead Farm within the Green Belt area of Tandridge. The site comprises the footprint of the proposed building which would be on an existing fenced paddock, adjacent to the livery’s sand school and west of the main buildings. The site is in a rural area where there is a mix of residential and rural land uses, including equestrian land and agricultural land.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

The site has a history including approved barns, horse boxes, hardstanding, a sand school and ancillary accommodation, alongside several refused or unresolved proposals.

“2002/1888 - Retention of 24 horse boxes within existing barn. Approved (full) 21/10/2003 Appeal Withdrawn…”

“2002/1890 - Retention of outdoor menage/sand school. Approved (full) 21/10/2003 Appeal Withdrawn…”

Officer report

Comments from others

Comments objected to landscape and Green Belt effects, questioned the need for machinery storage, and described the development as excessive and disproportionate.

“Detrimental to total landscape character • Detrimental to the Green Belt • Considerable development ono site already • Disproportionate and inappropriate development • No need for storage of machinery • Excessive development • Clarity required over parking…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke against the application.

The committee debate

Councillor Lockwood proposed refusal because of alleged Green Belt and landscape harm, cumulative equestrian built form and conflict with equestrian facilities policy.

“During the debate, Councillor Lockwood proposed the following motion for refusal:”

“The proposal for additional storage space for equestrian use is inappropriate development in the green belt and there are no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the openness of the green belt, as per the NPPF 2024, and it would have a cumulative adverse impact on the character of the landscape (Core Strategy 2008 CSP21).”

Minutes

What happened to the motion

The refusal motion was not seconded and therefore did not proceed to a vote.

“The motion was not seconded and therefore did not proceed to a vote.”

Minutes

The committee decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

“R E S O L V E D – that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.”

Minutes