Decision details

2/2018/0471 - Erection of stables and associated buildings - Retrospective (resubmission of 2/18/0172), Land at Pennygill Road, Flimby, Maryport

Decision Maker: Development Panel

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Representations

 

Councillor Peter Kendall spoke in support of the application

 

The Agent, Mr Tim Wilson spoke in support of the application

 

Application

 

The report recommended refusal and to pursue enforcement action.

 

The report outlined the application and detailed the main issues in the report as follows:

 

·  Previous Consent

 

Consent was granted under application 2/2015/0599 for the erection of timber stable building measuring 9m x 4.4m with an eaves height of 3m, ridge height 3.8m. The position of the building was towards the front of the field.

 

·  Content of application sought

 

The development erected on site is not in line with approved plans. The current application seeks retrospective consent for the retention of 3 buildings sited in a U-shape and enclosed by concrete panel walls.

 

·  Principle of Development

 

Policy DM6 of the Local Plan supports the principle of the erection of stable buildings, subject to the siting, scale, design and external materials respecting and enhancing the rural character of the area.

 

·  Siting, Scale and Design

 

The scale and materials of the development are considered inappropriate for the rural location. No detailed plans had been provided and there is no justification for the large size of the stable.

 

·  Amenity

 

The proposed disposal of the manure is acceptable.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented images of the site to members, advising that the applicant had agreed to remove a high brick wall, but that the current development deviated from agreed planning permission granted under 2/2015/0599.

 

The Senior Planning Officer also advised members that traffic was not an issue but that the concerns were in relation to design/scale and appearance.

 

Members were asked to compare presentation slides of the approved scheme with the proposed, and were advised on the absence of floor plans, with storage use and stable numbers also omitted.

 

Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report.

 

Questions were asked of the speakers and the officers and debate followed in relation to the justification for the building, noting that this was a retrospective application.

 

Officers clarified that they did not oppose the principle of the development but it had to comply with Policy DM6.

 

The agent clarified that the applicant erected a larger shed than what he was granted permission for, however this was due to an issue with delivery where a larger shed was delivered than requested.

 

Members were concerned about the use of the main stable building and the surrounding outer buildings; however one member enquired as to whether the enlarged shed would improve animal welfare.

 

Councillor Miskelly moved to refuse the application and pursue enforcement action as per the officer’s recommendations; this was seconded by Councillor Cockburn.

A vote was taken on the motion for refusal, 9 voted in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions.

 

The motion was carried.

 

Resolved

 

Refused and pursue enforcement action as per officer’s recommendation

 

 

 

Report author: Shona Reid

Publication date: 23/01/2019

Date of decision: 22/01/2019

Decided at meeting: 22/01/2019 - Development Panel

Accompanying Documents: