ITEM NO: 6
Location:
Land at Baldock Radio Station, Royston Road, Wallington
Applicant:
H & H Farmers Ltd
Proposal:
Change of use of land to provide new race horse training
facilities comprising 42 stables including feed, tack
storage and office, two storage barns, one equine pool
with plant room, solarium and sandroll, one warm up
track, one horse exerciser and one six furlong gallop.
Associated staff accommodation comprising one
Trainer's house, one temporary Assistant Trainer's mobile
home and one temporary two bed staff mobile home.
Associated works, access tracks and widening of existing
vehicular crossover onto A505. (As amended by plans
received 15th December 2009.)
Ref. No:
09/01849/ 1
Officer:
Naomi Reynard
Date of expiry of statutory period : 31 December 2009
Date of expiry of statutory period : 31 December 2009
Reason for Delay (if applicable)
Committee requested the application be deferred.
Reason for Referral to Committee (if applicable)
Major application – Development with a floorspace over 500 sq. metres on a site of
more than 1 Hectare.
1.0
Relevant History
1.1
Pre-application advice was provided on March 2008 for proposed race horse
training facilities on part of the site near to the A505.
1.2
An application was submitted in October 2008 for proposed race horse training
facilities on the site slightly further from the A505, but this was withdrawn in
February 2008.
1.3
Pre-application advice was provided on a scheme similar to this application for
proposed race horse training facilities at Metley Hill.
1.4
This application was referred to the Planning Control Committee on 17th December
2009 with a recommendation for refusal. The Planning Control Committee
requested that the application be deferred for further consideration.
2.0
Policies
2.1
National Planning Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Planning Policy Guidance 16 – Archaeology and Planning
Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control
2.2
East of England Plan
ENG1 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance
ENV3 – Biodiversity and Earth Heritage
2.3
Hertfordshire County Structure Plan Review 1991 – 2011 (saved policies)
Structure Plan Policy 29 – Traffic and road safety implications of development
proposals
2.4
North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations (saved policies)
Policy 6 - Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt
Policy 14 - Nature Conservation
Policy 16 - Areas of Archaeological Significance and other Archaeological Areas
Policy 36 - Employment Provision
Policy 51 – Development Effects and Planning Gain
Policy 55 - Car Parking Standards
2.5
North Hertfordshire District Council Supplementary Planning Documents
Supplementary Planning Document:
Vehicle Parking Provision at New
Developments
Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations.
3.0
Representations
3.1
Highways Authority - Does not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission
subject to six conditions and two informatives. They also recommended that a
sustainable transport contribution is provided.
3.2
Environment Agency – Raised no objections, but recommended a condition be
attached to any planning permission granted to deal with surface water drainage
3.3
County Archaeologist – Recommended a condition requiring the implementation
of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with an approved written
scheme of investigation.
3.4
Principal Land Agent, Hertfordshire County Council – No comments received
on the current application. However, comments received on the previous
application, which were incorporated in the key issues of the previous report.
3.5
Forward Planning Unit, Hertfordshire County Council - No comments.
3.6
Rights of Way (Footpaths), Hertfordshire County Council - No objections.
3.7
Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre - Recommended that a detailed ten
year conservation management plan for the site would need to be written and
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The plan must be legally
binding and managed via a Section 106 agreement.
3.8
Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust:
Recommended that in line with
recommendations within the applicant's ecological survey report, management of
the remainder of the site should be set out in a ten year management plan and
secured through a section 106 agreement to ensure biodiversity gains can be met
including a habitat management/restoration plan and badger survey. They also
suggested conditions or informatives in relation to the provision of bat boxes, bird
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
boxes, bird boxes (swallows), green roofs, water saving measures and code of
sustainable buildings.
3.9
Natural England (English Nature) - No comments received
3.10
CPRE – The Hertfordshire Society - No comments received
3.11
The British Horse Society - No comments received
3.12
English Heritage – No comments
3.13
Radio Monitoring Station - No comments received
3.14
Ofcom - Raised concern that there is no mention of improving the road that runs
through the site from the A505 to the proposed new equestrian facility in order to
cater for the heavier construction vehicles and horse boxes.
3.15
Veolia Water - Stated that the site is located within an Environment Agency
defined groundwater Source Protection Zone. The construction works and
operation of the proposed development site should be done in accordance with the
relevant British Standards and Best Management Practices, thereby significantly
reducing the groundwater pollution risk. It should be noted that the construction
works may exacerbate any existing pollution. If any pollution is found at the sites
then the appropriate monitoring and remediation methods will need to be
undertaken. For further information they refer to CIRIA Publication C532 "Control
of water pollution from construction - guidance for consultants and contractors"
3.16
Bygrave Parish Council - Commented regarding the widening of the existing
vehicular crossover on to A505 as this is already quite a blind turn and if it was
being widened and possibly slower moving horse boxes crossing then this could be
more dangerous.
3.17
Ashwell Parish Council - No comments received
3.18
Rushden and Wallington Parish Council – No comments received
3.19
Planning Obligations Officer, Hertfordshire County Council - The application
would fall below the NHDC threshold and accordingly HCC would not seek any
financial contributions. However, if a S106 is required in respect of this application
the provision of fire hydrants should be included as an obligation as set out within
the North Hertfordshire District Council Planning Obligations Supplementary
Planning Document.
3.20
North Hertfordshire District Council Environmental Protection Team Recommended the inclusion of a contaminated land planning condition should
permission be granted.
3.21
North Hertfordshire District Council Waste Management Team - Commented
that it would be easier for the collection vehicles to enter the site and physically
collect from the individual properties rather than from the main road side which
does present health & safety issues. However, they would need to include some
form of turning radius for the collection vehicles within the development to enable
this to happen. Otherwise they would need to bring their bins all the way down to
the road side for collection. The actual stable yard would also need some form of
trade waste collection service access and turning radius.
3.22
Neighbours/site publicity
Representations received on behalf of the company which owns Wheat Hill Farm,
Sandon, neighbouring the application site raising no objections.
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
4.0
Planning Considerations
4.1
Site & Surroundings
4.1.1 The application site is to the south east of the A505. The development area to be
used for the training facility is on the top of Metley Hill. The proposed gallop would
run the perimeter of the entire site. The development area on Metley Hill would be
to the south, east and west of the existing masts and single storey building
associated with the radio station. Most of the radio station buildings are located on
lower ground in the centre of the application site. The proposed training facility
would be accessed by the existing track from the A505.
4.2
Proposal
4.2.1 The proposal is for the change of use of land to provide new race horse training
facilities comprising the following:
 stable yard with 42 horse boxes with ancillary storage areas, staff W/C’s, an
office, tack room and blanket wash/dry/store,
 service yard with two storage barns
 one loading ramp
 one four bedroom trainer's house
 one three bedroom temporary assistant trainer’s mobile home
 one temporary two bedroom staff mobile home
 one six furlong gallop
 one horse exerciser
 one equine pool with building for plant room, sandroll and solarium
 one warm up track
 associated works,
 access tracks, and
 widening of existing vehicular crossover onto A505.
4.2.2 The application has been amended by plans received 15th December 2009. In
essence the amendments are that the assistant trainer’s house and the worker’s
cottage would now be temporary mobile homes. They would no longer have
garages and this has involved some minor alterations to the landscaping around
these proposed properties. The trainer’s house would remain a permanent
dwelling. However, the applicant has suggested that a clause could be inserted in
the Section 106 Agreement that should the race horse training yard fail to operate
for an agreed period of time; the dwellings would then be removed. All consultees
have been re-consulted on the amendments. Since the previous consideration at
committee of this application Planning Policy Statement 4 (Planning for Sustainable
Economic Growth) has been published, which is material consideration in the
determination of this application.
4.3
Key Issues
4.3.1 I have appended to this report the following three documents:
a) Previous officer report to Planning Control Committee.
b) Letter from the agent in response to the Planning Control Committee
meeting.
c) Letter from one of the applicants who is part of the farming company that
has submitted the application.
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
4.3.2 The committee deferred this application for the following reasons:
1. To consider the amendments raised by the Applicant and to reconsult on the amendments including further consideration of the
landscaping and subsequently report back to a future meeting of the
Planning Control Committee following the conclusion of any further
consultations.
2. To provide further information concerning the definition of the
agricultural industry, in particular the relationship with the training of
racehorses.
3. To explore the requirements laid down by the British Horseracing
Authority for obtaining a trainer's licence, particularly in relation to
whether a permanent dwelling was required on site from the outset.
4. In order for the Planning Control Committee to be more aware of the
layout of the site and proposed development that the case officer for
this application be requested to co-ordinate a site visit in conjunction
with the applicant.
I will address each of these points in this report. I will not repeat the discussion set
out in the previous report, but will make reference to it where appropriate. The
fundamental issue in the determination of this application is the acceptability or
otherwise of the proposed facility in this particular rural location, in terms of its
landscape and visual impact. If it were considered to be acceptable in landscape
terms, the second issue to address would be whether the provision of permanent
housing at the outset would be appropriate.
4.3.3 Before considering these points, I would draw to Members attention that Planning
Policy Statement 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) has been
published since this application was last considered at Planning Control
Committee. This document cancels Paragraph 32 of Planning Policy Statement 7,
which is referred to in paragraph 4.3.6 of my previous committee report. Paragraph
of Planning Policy Statement 4 states that in rural areas, local planning authorities
should:
“where appropriate, support equine enterprises, providing for a range of
suitably located recreational and leisure facilities and the needs of training
and breeding businesses that maintain environmental quality and
countryside character”
In my view, Planning Policy Statement 4 gives less support to the proposed
scheme, as it would in my opinion fail to maintain the environmental quality and
countryside character for the reasons set out below. The agent has also referred to
the Taylor Review called Living Working Countryside, which was commissioned by
the Prime Minister in 2008. I have reviewed this document, but do not consider it
appropriate to give it great weight as a material planning consideration, as it is not
part of national planning guidance.
4.3.4 Landscaping
The amended scheme has involved some minor changes to the landscaping
around the assistant trainer’s and the worker’s dwellings, but otherwise the
landscaping remains the same. The agent has provided further justification for the
landscape impact of the proposed scheme in his letter dated 21st January 2010,
which is appended. A Supplementary Visual Appraisal was received 29th January
2010, which illustrates three more photographs from the east and north east of the
site. They also submitted copies of the 3D images that were included in their
planning drawings. The Council’s Landscape and Urban Designer was consulted
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
on the amended scheme (and read the further justification provided) and concluded
that changing the assistant trainer’s house and the staff house to mobile homes
would not lessen the impact on the landscape and visual impact would still be
there. As such, the development would not be acceptable in this location.
4.3.5 Members requested that further consideration be given to the landscaping issue
and as such I will elaborate on the comments made in paragraphs 4.3.7 and 4.3.9
– 4.3.14 in my previous report.
4.3.6 The agent considers that the site presents a genuine brownfield development
opportunity, as the site benefits from being ‘previously developed’. For the reasons
set out in paragraph 4.3.7 of my previous report I do not consider this to be the
case. In any event, irrespective of whether the site is considered to be brownfield
land, the adverse visual impact on the landscape would outweigh any other
considerations. The only existing built elements within the proposed development
area are the one, single storey building and the radio masts, as well as the
containers on the site. The masts are grey in colour and are open structures. As
such the existing elements do not have the same visual impact as the proposed
two storey buildings which would cover the whole of the Metley Hill site, not to
mention the proposed tree planting to hide them. The existing masts and building
would be retained on the site and not removed as part of the scheme.
4.3.7 The site is exposed and can be seen when travelling or walking along the roads
and footpaths to the west, south and east of the site. Views from the west are not
contained by the existing copse nor by the partial hedgerow along the western
boundary. Views from the south are more open and the masts and single storey
building belonging to the radio station at the top of the ridge can be seen, indicating
that buildings in front of them would be even more prominent. The agent has
claimed that the existing woodland copse would provide an elevated natural
backdrop when the proposal would be viewed from the south. However, the
existing copse is on the other side of the ridge from the proposed development and
therefore only the tops of the canopy would provide the backdrop. Views from the
east are not limited to transient views associated with the radio station compound;
they are visible from dwellings in this area. Again if the building and masts at the
top of the ridge adjacent to the proposed development can be seen then buildings
in front of them would be visually more prominent.
4.3.8 In paragraph 4.3.13 of my previous report I raised concern that, in the Landscape
and Visual Appraisal submitted with the application, few of the photographic
viewpoints were taken from the east and south-east and there did not appear to be
any viewpoints from residential properties. The agent responded by stating that
there is no requirement to provide a landscape assessment from private land and
neighbouring landowners have not objected on the grounds of landscape impact.
However, “The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment” state that
the most sensitive receptors may include occupiers of residential properties with
views affected by development. Unless views from private property are considered
we cannot know that they are not affected. As such they should be included in any
assessment. People that live in or use the landscape may have a different
perception of the landscape from those occasionally passing through it. Whilst no
objections have been raised by neighbours to the proposals, this does not render
the scheme acceptable. Indeed, I would be uncomfortable with a ‘planning by
consensus’ approach. In the originally submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal
were only two photographs from the east (7 & 11) which cover an arc of about 120
degrees between them. As requested three further photographs from the east and
north east of the site were received on 29th January and were accompanied by a
supplementary visual appraisal. These photographs will be displayed at the
committee meeting. The visual appraisal argues that the development would have
limited visual impact on views from the east and north east. However, I would not
concur with this view.
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
Whilst I note, the comments that many of the views from this direction are limited by
roadside hedges and other vegetation, the proposal would be visible from the
roads, footpaths and residential properties (and open countryside) to the east and
north east. When viewed from the east the development would not be observed in
the context of the existing radio station, as the main cluster of radio station
buildings is located further down the slope to the north and at Metley Hill there is
only a single storey building (and containers) and three masts, which are not solid
structures. The proposed planting would also not provide an elevated backdrop in
the short-term. Whilst I note there are some changes in ground level, the proposed
scheme would be located in an elevated position within a relatively level plateau.
4.3.9 The agent maintains that they have provided full mitigation proposals and that tree
planting is not as alien to the landscape, as my previous committee report
suggests. The site falls within Landscape Character Area 223 of the North
Hertfordshire and Stevenage Landscape Character Assessment, which describes
“a large expanse of semi-improved species-rich calcareous/neutral grassland
centred around the Metley Hill Wireless Station” and states that “woodland is
restricted to the vestigial elm copse at Wallington and scrub at Quickswood”.
The Council’s Landscape and Urban Designer considers that the proposed planting
is not in character and would itself create a visual impact. There is no existing tree
planting within the Metley Hill site. Whilst I recognise that Herts and Middlesex
Wildlife Trust and Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre have raised no
objections to the proposal, one of the recommendations in the Herts and Middlesex
Wildlife Consultancy report, which accompanied the application, is for the
development to minimise the number of planted trees. The proposal does not
appear to do this. The Landscape Strategy Plan, submitted as part of the
application indicates a significant amount of woodland planting in the west of the
site, substantial hedgerow planting along the western and eastern boundaries,
formal tree and hedge planting within the site and woodland planting along the
northern boundary with the existing radio masts and building. I note from the
applicant’s letter, which I have attached in Annex C, her concern at the
degeneration of the down land at the Radio Station, which in the absence of an
alternative, has been let to an intensive sheep farmer. And I recognise that the
proposal would mean restoring the grassland to the original down land turf, and
needing only extensive grazing by sheep. However, in my view this would not
mitigate the impact this development would have.
4.3.10 In essence, the applicants have failed to provide us with sufficient information to
confirm that the proposals would not have a negative visual impact. Based on the
information provided, the Council’s assessment of the proposal has concluded that
the proposals would have an adverse landscape and visual impact on the site and
the surrounding countryside.
4.3.11 Amended proposed residential accommodation
The scheme has been amended so that two of the dwellings would be temporary
and the applicants have suggested that a clause could be inserted in the Section
106 Agreement that should the race horse training yard fail to operate for an
agreed period of time; the permanent trainer’s house (and the two mobile homes)
would then be removed. These amendments fail to overcome the reason for
refusal recommended in the previous report, as the proposals would fail to comply
with Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7. I would draw your attention to
paragraphs 4.3.15 – 4.3.24 of my previous report, which set out the reasoning for
this. In particular, Paragraph 12 of Annex A states:
“If a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity, whether on a
newly-created agricultural unit or an established one, it should normally, for
the first three years, be provided by a caravan, a wooden structure which can
be easily dismantled, or other temporary accommodation.”
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
The proposals fail to comply with this, as there would be three dwellings, not one,
and one of the dwellings would not be provided by temporary accommodation that
can be easily dismantled. In any event I consider that the proposed permanent
house and the two temporary mobile homes would have an adverse landscape and
visual impact on the site and the surrounding countryside.
4.3.12 I have sought legal advice on the proposed clause in the Section 106 Agreement.
The Council’s Legal team are of the view that it is possible that the clause could not
be enforceable. I would imagine that it would be very difficult to demolish an
existing permanent house, which is occupied by a family, who have lost their
source of income. Whilst I would not recommend the proposed clause in principle,
I would also comment that the proposal to remove the dwellings should the race
horse training yard fail to operate is flawed. The use could be operating, but still
fail to meet the financial and functional needs for permanent dwellings, as set out in
Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7. The agent’s suggestion that the
development could be phased so that the dwellings would be built after the other
facilities, would not overcome the fundamental objections to this proposal. Given
the recommendation, the Section 106 Agreement has not been agreed and is still
outstanding. As the Section 106 has not been finalised it is necessary to
recommend a reason for refusal in relation to this.
4.3.13 Licensing Requirements
The guidance notes for the application for trainer’s license 2009/2010 state: “It is
a basic security requirement that you either live at the premises or have a
suitably experienced and responsible employee living there.”
I have
contacted the British Horseracing Authority and they have confirmed that there is
no requirement under the Licensing Committee’s Guidelines relating to a Licence to
Train that accommodation at a yard must be of a permanent nature, the Committee
simply wishes to be satisfied that a responsible member of staff will be resident at
the premises, outside of ‘office hours’. They have also confirmed that, although it
may be advisable (particularly at a larger training establishment) to have more than
one member of staff on site at all times, this is not a requirement under the
Licensing criteria, but a matter for the individual trainer to assess. I note the need
to attract a suitably experienced trainer and the desire to use the trainer’s dwelling
for hospitality for owners, however in my view this is not sufficient justification to
disregard national policy guidance. Indeed a suitably experienced and responsible
employee (not necessarily the trainer) could live on the site and hospitality could be
provided off site.
4.3.14 Other local facilities
The agent has referred to Newsells Stud in their justification and Kings Ride
Stables were also referred to at the previous committee meeting. On this matter, I
would draw your attention to paragraph 4.3.5 of my previous committee report.
Newsells Park Stud is not really comparable, as it is a thoroughbred racing stud
farm, not a thoroughbred racing stables like this proposal. As such, the use is more
agricultural in character than a training facility and does not require such a high
density of development. The landscape of rolling hills and woodland at Newsells is
quite different to the open landscape at Baldock Radio Station and as such the
buildings have been able to be carefully sited at Newsells to minimise the visual
impact on the countryside. Newsells Stud was established in the 1920s, well
before the current planning system came into being. With regard to the dwellings
on the site, existing farmhouses and cottages were made use of any more
dwellings were only developed as the stud developed. More recent applications,
including the 2007 application for a general manager’s house which is referred to in
the submission, have been tested against Planning Policy Statement 7 and a
significant amount of evidence was required in the form of supporting statements in
order to demonstrate that the proposals complied with the relevant planning
policies.
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
Kings Ride Stables is a thoroughbred stables, that was granted planning
permission in 1977 as the relocation of an established racehorse training
establishment from the centre of Royston to the heath, where there were existing
gallops. The stables are discretely sited in the landscape and as such have
minimal visual impact on the surrounding countryside.
4.3.15 Other applications
With the justification letter the agent has submitted a list of developments in which
the agent and architects have been involved and where new dwellings have been
permitted at the outset. I have carried out some research in relation to these
planning applications, particularly those nearest to North Hertfordshire, and have a
few comments. Firstly, each application should be considered on its own merits
and in light of the development plan. Many of the applications for dwellings were in
relation to expansion of an existing site, or creation of a satellite site or for
businesses already well established in the local area. Several of the applications
referred to were within the areas covered by Forest Heath and East
Cambridgeshire District Councils. As explored in paragraph 4.3.23 of my previous
report, both of these Council’s recognise that they are a ‘horse-racing hot spot’ and
as such they have specific policies in their development plans, which support this
recognised and established contribution to the local economy around the racing
town of Newmarket. Notwithstanding this they also take into account Annex A of
Planning Policy Statement 7. North Hertfordshire is removed from the nearest
racecourse at Newmarket and cannot be considered to be a horseracing hotspot.
As such there are no policies in the local plan or emerging Local Development
Framework in relation to this industry. In the absence of any such specific policies
significant weight must be given to national planning policy guidance.
4.3.16 Employment creation
The agent has also justified the proposal on the basis that it would create nine jobs
and the applicant has suggested in her letter that it should bring extra employment
to the area over and above these nine jobs. As stated in paragraph 4.3.25 of my
previous committee report, in my view the creation of an estimated nine jobs would
not outweigh the fundamental objections to the scheme.
4.3.17 Definition of Agriculture
Members requested information concerning the definition of the agricultural
industry, in particular the relationship with the training of racehorses. Agriculture is
defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as follows:
“’agriculture’ includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy
farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept
for the production of food, wool, skins or fur or for the purpose of its use in
the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land,
market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands
where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural
purposes, and ‘agricultural’ shall be construed accordingly”
Clearly, race horse training facilities do not constitute “agriculture”, as defined in the
planning legislation. It is, however, worth noting that the criteria in Annex A of
Planning Policy Statement 7 for agricultural dwellings should also be applied to
dwellings associated with other rural-based enterprises. Indeed Paragraph 15 of
Annex A states:
“Local planning authorities should apply the same stringent levels of
assessment to applications for such new occupational dwellings as they
apply to applications for agricultural and forestry workers’ dwellings.”
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
4.3.18 Site visit
As Members will be aware, a site visit has been arranged in order for the Planning
Control Committee to be more aware of the layout of the site and proposed
development.
4.4
Conclusion
4.4.1 In conclusion, the amendments and further justification have failed to overcome the
recommended reasons for refusal in the previous report. The proposal for a race
horse training facility in this location would not be acceptable in terms of visual
impact on the landscape character of the area. The evidence provided in support of
the application does not demonstrate how it could be accommodated without a
significant landscape and visual impact on the site and the surrounding countryside.
Moreover, the amended provision of the proposed dwellings would still fail to
comply with the criteria set out in Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7. While it
is acknowledged that some parts of the country are recognised as being important
for the established and viable nature of their horse racing economy, North
Hertfordshire does not enjoy this status. Accordingly, there are no saved or
emerging policies which recognise horse racing land uses specifically. In these
circumstances there can be little policy support for making exceptions to the strict
presumptions set out in Planning Policy Statement 7.
5.0
Legal Implications
5.1
In making decisions on applications submitted under the Town and Country
Planning legislation, the Council is required to have regard to the provisions of the
development plan and to any other material considerations. The decision must be
in accordance with the plan unless the material considerations indicate otherwise.
Where the decision is to refuse or restrictive conditions are attached, the applicant
has a right of appeal against the decision.
6.0
Recommendation
6.1
That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1.
The proposed scheme would have an adverse landscape and visual impact on
the site and the surrounding countryside, by reason of its siting on elevated
ground in an open landscape, the amount and form of proposed development
and the proposed planting. This would be exacerbated by the formal nature of
the layout including the paddocks, warm up track and equine pool with fencing
and hedging which would be alien to the character of the area. As such the
proposal would be contrary to Policy 6 of the North Hertfordshire District Local
Plan No. 2 with Alterations and Planning Policy Statement 7.
2.
The proposed race horse training enterprise has yet to be established on the
site and the financial need and viability assessment is based on projected data
and as such does not provide compelling justification for the long-term viability
of the new business and the associated need for one permanent dwelling and
two temporary mobile homes in an area of rural restraint. As a consequence,
the proposal would be contrary to the advice contained in Annex A of PPS 7
Annex A and the objectives Policy 6 of the District Local Plan No 2 with
Alterations.
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
3.
The application has not been accompanied by a valid legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which would secure
the payment of a financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the proposed
development on infrastructure and public services and facilities in accordance
with the provisions of the Council’s adopted Planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Document, pursuant to Policy 51 of the North
Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations and central government
guidance contained in PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development.
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)
- THIS PAGE IS BLANK -
PLANNING CONTROL (18.2.10)