Proposed horse walker for up to four horses.
Holly Cottage, Drainside North Kirton Boston PE20 1PE
Mr Thomas Strickland
Planning Application B/21/0158
Proposed horse walker for up to four horses
Holly Cottage, Drainside North, Kirton, Boston PE20 1PE
Mr Thomas Strickland
The Assistant Director – Planning presented the application to committee, confirming that it had been called-in, due to the planning history on the site. As such, it was agreed that a transparent determination by the committee was required for this application.
The application site had an area of approximately 0.01 hectares, and consisted of a hard-core / gravel-surfaced area of land. Part of land sited a shipping container used for the open storage of materials and machinery. In addition, the site had a 3m-high deciduous hedge to the north, a paddock to the west and a large barn/stable building to the east
The site formed part of a much larger property that consisted of a two-storey building, a one-and-a-half storey garage block, an equestrian ménage, stables, storage buildings and extensive paddocks. The surrounding area was rural in character with four other dwellings within approximately 200m. The surrounding land including much of that to the north and south already had horses on them.
The horse walker, which the application indicated would be used in connection with the domestic use of the site, would be 10 metres in diameter with the fences standing 1.7 metres. It would form a circular structure with inner and outer mesh fences and a rubber-surfaced walkway for the horses. It would be un-roofed and un-lit.
Addressing the history of the site, the Assistant Director – Planning advised that it had been subject to various planning permissions with the most recent being in 2019, when permission was granted for a timber barn for use as a stable and for private use.
Confirming there had been no response from any of the statutory consultees, the Assistant Director – Planning advised that representation had been received from the neighbour at Spittal Farm, citing concerns that the surface water would flow onto their land increasing future flood risk. The neighbour further stated they felt the application was contradictory concerning the disposal of surface water as the application indicated the use of a soakaway, but the Flood Risk Assessment suggested that water would disperse into the surrounding ground. Officers had conditioned a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water be submitted.
Representation was received from Mr Henty in objection to the application that included the following:
Reiterating the opening comments of the Assistant Director – Planning, Mr Henty referenced the history with the applicants and stated he was pleased the application had come before committee for transparency of the decision making. He advised that ongoing development at the application site had resulted in damage to his land. Referencing the hedge identified within the report for surface run-off, he confirmed that the hedge was on his land and that the size of the intended site required soakaways be used for run-off water and not his hedge. Referencing the barn built in 2019, Mr Henty stated that the application had no drainage conditions thereon, with his hedge used ever since for run-off water from the ten stables and the barn. Whilst he had tried to take enforcement action, he had been unable to do so, due to the lack of conditions. He did not want that to happen with the current application. Mr Henty stated that the applicant had the opportunity to use substantial drains on the opposing boundary owned by Black Sluice Internal Drainage who would give consent. In conclusion, Mr Henty questioned the impact of the horse walker throughout the day and its exact siting in respect of the boundary.
The Chairman invited committee members to ask questions of Mr Henty – Mr Henty’s responses noted in italics:
In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Director – Planning provided visual reference to siting of Mr Henty’s property in relation to the applicants property, and the location of the optional drainage provision.
Was the neighbouring property on higher ground than Mr Henty’s property?
Yes it was
Thanking Mr Henty for his attendance, the Chairman invited Committee to deliberate and determine the application.
Overall Members acknowledged the history of the site and the issues resulting from the ongoing developments thereon. However, they agreed that the rural setting with the existing equine activity in the surrounding area was in keeping with the application. There were no spatial concerns in respect of the siting of the facility in relation in neighbouring residences. Rubber flooring addressed any concern of noise disturbance and the hedges were a good height to assist with noise and run-off water.
However, some Members were concerned at the potential issue of surface water run-off and drainage on the site, in line with the applicants’ property being higher than the neighbours’ property. Noting the consents on the previous applications and the lack of conditions thereon, they stated that that they would like to see a condition requesting that the applicant seek to use the Black Sluice drainage option to stop any water damage on Mr Henty’s property.
Further concerns tabled noted that there was no condition in respect of lighting and once granted, the site could have lighting installed thereafter with nothing in place to control what type of lighting was permissible, if any lighting was at all. Furthermore, a roof could also be added at a later with no condition to be satisfied.
The Assistant Director – Planning addressed the above concerns as follows:
The report already had a condition to address the issues in respect of surface water drainage within the report – condition 4. It required a submission of a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water drainage. This gave the Council control of the situation and the site itself offered a number of options. Should that condition change to require the applicant to apply to Black Sluice alone, and they in turn refused, then the applicant would need a variation.
What the Council could do would be to add an informative to the recommendation, which would advise the applicant of the committee’s preference of the use of the Black Sluice facility alongside the site. Condition 4 would stand but the informative would highlight that committee, whilst having granted the application, would prefer Black Sluice as the operator for drainage of the site.
Any addition of a roof would require planning permission and as such, come through planning. Should committee agree the need for a lighting condition, to avoid any light pollution in a rural area, one could be included.
It was moved by Councillor Jonathon Noble and seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner that the committee grant the application in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions and reasons therein. Furthermore, committee agree the additional condition to restrict any future installation of lighting at the site and further agree a delegation to the Assistant Director–Planning to construct an informative in respect of drainage on the site.
Vote: 11 in favour. 0 against. 0 abstention.
That committee grant the application in line with officer recommendation, subject to the following conditions and reasons including the additional condition (No.5) in respect of any future lighting installations on the site and agreed the delegation to the Assistant Director – Planning to construct the additional informative (noted below after the conditions) in respect of drainage.
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
§ Location Plan;
§ Block Plan;
§ Photo image of horse-walker; and
§ Photo-image of single pusher.
Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, and to comply with Policies 1, 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036.
3. The horse-walker hereby approved shall be used for domestic purposes only that are considered incidental to the enjoyment of the occupiers of the dwelling known as Holly Cottage, and no commercial activity shall take place from the site.
Reason: The horse-walker hereby approved has been assessed as being for domestic purposes only and the impact of running any commercial venture from this site has not been assessed. The approved development accords with Policies 1, 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 and the intentions of the NPPF (2019).
4. Prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with Policies 2 and 4 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036.
5. Notwithstanding the details submitted as part of this application, no lighting shall be installed at the site to serve the horse-walker hereby permitted.
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the area, and to ensure that no lighting is installed which could have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, and to ensure that the development accords with Policies 1, 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 and the intentions of the NPPF (2019).
In determining this application, the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.
The applicant is hereby encouraged to use all reasonable endeavours to consider the potential for the surface water solution required under condition 4 to discharge to the Internal Drainage Board drainage ditch which runs adjacent to the site. The applicant is encouraged to provide evidence of such investigations as part of the discharge of condition request required in connection with condition 4