Stable building and track at Ashley House Farm, Pilling, Preston

What was proposed

The application sought a larger domestic curtilage, domestic storage in existing stables, a replacement stable and an extended track, partly retrospectively.

“The proposal seeks planning permission for the change of use of land to extend domestic curtilage and use of existing stable as domestic storage, the erection of replacement stable building and extension of existing track (part retrospective).”

“The replacement stable building has been erected and the track has been completed. The stable and domestic storage building appears to have been repositioned from the eastern boundary of the site to allow for the track.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The land behind Ashley House Farm lies in the countryside, with an existing track, buildings, paddock and enclosures beside open countryside.

“The application site relates to two parcels of land to the rear of Ashley House Farm, a large detached red brick dwelling located on the southern side of Smallwood Hey. The dwelling and attached stone barn are located in the settlement boundary, however, the land to the rear, subject of this application is located within the Countryside as identified in the Adopted Wyre Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (WLP 31).”

“A gravelled access track leads from the side of the dwelling to the land at the rear which extends over 200m to the south. There is a building constructed from blockwork at the rear of the dwelling which is part stable, part storage building, a sand paddock and various covered enclosures.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and enforcement

An earlier application for a rear extension and private sand paddock was approved, while the portal building and lodge were under enforcement investigation.

“04/01304/FUL - Single storey rear extension and construction of sand paddock for private use - Approved…”

Officer report

Why refusal was advised

The detached stable and extended track were considered unjustified, visually harmful and inconsistent with countryside, equestrian and design policies.

“The site is located in the countryside, the openness and rural character of which is protected. Part of the application seeks permission for the erection of a stable building and extended track, which by reason of its commercial design and detached location, is not considered to meet the requirements of Policy EP10. The development would therefore, represent an unjustified form of development which would encroach into the countryside.”

“The site falls in the countryside, which is protected for its open and rural character. The proposal would be for equine related activities, however, by reason of the design and characteristics of the development, it is considered to be commercial in nature and it is unclear whether the building design is suitable for the purpose intended.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while highways, engineering, the Environment Agency and environmental protection raised no objections, subject to requirements where stated.

“Objections raised - stables are outside the residential curtilage and have been built without planning permission. A caravan and septic tank have also been sited without planning permission.”

“WBC ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROTECTION (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - AMENITY)”

Officer report

Who spoke

[name withheld] spoke against the application, and the applicant spoke in support.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the replacement stable’s windows, ventilation and purpose, while councillors raised concerns about cars, dual use and its countryside location.

“Councillors asked questions regarding the replacement stable, it’s lack of…”

“Councillor Swatton commented that he didn’t think the proposal was fit for purpose and had concerns over the development not complying with the DEFRA guidance, as well as with the dual use of the replacement stables.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Kay proposed refusal, Councillor Swatton seconded it, and members resolved to refuse the application as recommended.

“Councillor Kay proposed the recommendation to refuse planning permission. Councillor Swatton seconded the proposal. It was resolved to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was refused because the development was considered an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside with harmful design and layout.

“The development does not follow the sequential approach in the selection of the site, contrary to Policy EP10 of the Adopted Wyre Local Plan. As a consequence, by reason of the commercial design and layout of the development, it would adversely impact the open and rural character of the countryside area resulting in unacceptable visual harm.”

Officer report