Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Padalino addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/10/2154/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons now detailed.

Councillor J J Taylor stated that she failed to see how this application would harm neighbour amenity and queried why dog kennels could not be supported as a form of countryside development.

Councillor J J Taylor commented that this application was not a change of use and was perfectly suited to the site.  She reminded Members that there had been no objections from any of the statutory consultees.  The only objection had been from the immediate neighbouring site that had recently been the subject of an application for residential development in the green belt.

Councillor J J Taylor stressed that noise, smell and insufficient parking were not, in her opinion, significant issues for concern.  She stated this was an appropriate and sustainable countryside development that was perfectly suited to this site.

Councillor J J Taylor stated that Officers had considered the scheme to be generally acceptable in relation to the rural character of the area, with minimal encroachment into the countryside.  Councillor R N Copping commented that traffic was not an issue as significantly more vehicle movements were caused by the zoo opposite this site. 

Councillor J Demonti stated that this was a material change of use and kennels tended to be located away from houses, whereas this scheme was only 25 metres from existing residential development and 5 metres from a proposed new dwelling.

Councillor Demonti commented that this application was contrary to policies GBC9, TR7, ENV24 and PPG2, which stated that special circumstances must be demonstrated before development was approved in the green belt.  She stated that no such special circumstances had been demonstrated in this case.

The Director advised that hunt kennels and boarding kennels were what Officers referred to as Sui Generis in that these uses do not fit into any of the established use classes.  As such, and bearing in mind the material differences between the two uses, this application did constitute a material change of use.

The Committee was advised that kennels can be located in rural areas and in many cases they had to be.  The Director stressed that Officers felt this was inappropriate development in the green belt, particularly as the application involved substantial alterations to the building and not just the re-use of a redundant agricultural building.

The Director stated that noise was an issue for concern, particularly for the outdoor areas which were impossible to sound proof.  Officers were also concerned that insufficient information had been submitted in relation to traffic generation.

Councillor J J Taylor proposed and Councillor R N Copping seconded, a motion that application 3/10/2154/FP be granted on the grounds that this scheme was an appropriate and acceptable countryside usage in the green belt.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared LOST.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/10/2154/FP be refused planning permission for the reasons now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/10/2154/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.            Within MGB – EHLP (R021)

2.            Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the building does not require complete or substantial reconstruction before adaptation to the new use, and the proposed conversion includes substantial extensions and physical alterations that would be unsympathetic to the character and appearance of this simple rural building, and intrude into the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GBC1 and GBC9 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

3.            The proposed development would be likely to result in harm to neighbour amenity by way of noise disturbance, contrary to policy ENV24 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

4.            Insufficient information has been submitted on anticipated vehicular movements and staff numbers to properly determine the impact of the development on the rural highway network, disturbance to adjacent neighbouring property, and the associated on-site parking provision. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies TR7 and TR20 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.