I would like to object to application 14/01623.
The previous application 14/00982 was refused GPMB based upon the insufficient evidence of
agricultural claims regarding the stable block in question. In my opinion this new application still
lacks evidence regarding the current building as follows:
1. Not the same building
Mr Breed’s supporting evidence confirms him to have built a dwelling for calves in the 1980s, which
he maintained for a period of 10 years. The aerial view of the building supplied by Mr Breed
confirms the appearance of the building he constructed:
The aerial view below is of the building taken by Google in 2011. This building is clearly not the
same building Mr Breed is referring to in the 1980s & 1990s:
If you compare the 2 pictures you will see that Mr Breed’s picture shows the house to have a flat
roof, whereas the current roof has a pitch.
Mr & Mrs Goff submitted planning application 96/952 in 1996 for a new roof on the main house.
The site map submitted by the architects Gurney Storer for this application shows all buildings
currently at Briary House, with the exclusion of Mr Breed’s building.
As you can see, the wooden stable block is shown, however Mr Breed’s building is not.
These pictures clearly demonstrate that the original building suggested to house calves is no longer
on the property. This building was a much smaller unit and nothing like the current stable block
under application.
It may be clearer if Mrs Goff were to submit photographs of the current building in question.
2. Evidence of calf rearing per DEFRA
The pictures above have lead me to assume that the latest building was built between 1996 (roof
application) and 2011 (Google maps).
Never the less, DEFRA have confirmed that even one single solitary calf would have to be registered
under the Cattle Identification Regulations. The British Cattle Movement Service registers all
births/deaths/movements of any cattle and will provide supporting evidence (under FOI Act 2000)
with regards to this application.
This information, together with clarification of when this latest building was erected, should then
establish sufficient foundation to assess its prior use. Again, pictures of the current structure would
add clarity for the observer, when comparing to Mr Breed’s pre 1996 pictures.
3. Legislation – Town & Country Planning – 6th April 2014
The new PD rights regarding the conversion of agricultural buildings are causing much concern
throughout England. This application is more than testing the boundaries of this legislation on the
following terms:
a) Preclude of buildings on existing footprints
It has been demonstrated above that the building Mr Breed has suggested to be of
agricultural classification is no longer on the site. As the new legislation precludes buildings
on existing footprints, the current building does not comply.
b) Agricultural buildings – equestrian excluded
The new legislation specifically excludes equestrian buildings. The current building on the
site is a horse stable block and does not therefore comply.
c) Agricultural buildings – sole use
The new legislation MA.1 stipulates that buildings ‘not used solely for an agricultural use’
do not comply. Mr Breed’s photograph submitted (pre 1998) clearly shows 2 calves and a
horse in the stable.
While the picture does not show the building in question with clarity, the aerial picture Mr
Breed submitted shows that the only fencing in close proximity to any building (as in the
picture with calves) at that time is that of the building he built.
The only equestrian use that may comply is horse meat and/or horses for working the land.
None of the evidence supplied supports either claim of use for the horses on the land. Yet
there is clearly a horse pictured in Mr Breed’s photograph.
The pictures submitted by Mr Breed therefore suggest that neither the existing OR the
previous building comply with the Town & Country Planning Act 2014 No. 564.
Legislation summary:
The importance of the decision regarding this application should not go unnoticed. Should it be
decided to pass this GPMB without further investigation of compliance (regarding the legislation
notes above) then Wychavon Council will be setting a precedent for widening the scope of the new
legislation. This result would not only set a precedent for all horse stable blocks to be challenged in
Wychavon, it would open the scope of the law to be challenged throughout the whole of England’s
countryside.
The local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority—
(a) the proposed development does not comply with, or
(b) the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish
whether the proposed development complies with, any conditions, limitations or restrictions
specified in this Part as being applicable to the development in question.
This building is an equestrian stable block. The evidence deliberated in notes a) to c) clearly
establishes valid points for non-compliance of the legislation. This planning application should
therefore be refused under the new Act and subjected to a normal planning application.
4. Town & Country Planning – 6th April 2014
My final complaint, while attracting a ‘NIMBY’ status, is with due cause.
This building is no more than 6M away from the rear wall of my house. The front orientation of this
building will be facing directly into my back bedroom window. There is a boundary hedgerow
between the 2 buildings; however this has little camouflage during winter months. Mrs Goff’s
proposed dwelling will therefore be looking directly into the rear private quarters of my property.
Her vehicle access will also be in front of her building, so I will also be subjected to traffic passing less
than 3M from my bedroom window.
The new legislation states that a Council may refuse GPMB when ‘the location or siting of the
building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural
use to a house’.
Under normal planning regulations, this application would be refused due to its proximity with
regards to my property; hence the reason for its application under the guise of an agricultural
building.
I was so distraught after the first application 14/00982 in May 2014 that I even put my property up
for sale. I was hoping that the refusal of the original application would result in me being able to
move back into my home. However this current application has given me more reason for concern.
I hope that the reasons submitted above give my Council grounds to refuse this unlawful application
again in the hope that I can finally settle.
Yours
Alison Cartwright