Menu
Bluebell Stables
PLEASE NOTE PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL UNDERWAY
16/03303/FUL | Use of land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site consisting of two pitches each with 1 no. mobile home and 1 no. touring caravan, conversion of existing stables building into utility dayroom and farriers workshop. | Stables Adjacent To Curridge House Curridge Road Curridge Thatcham Berkshire
Direct link to West Berkshire District Council Planning Portal showing the original application:
planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=16/03303/FUL
This application was refused by West Berkshire Council in January 2017, and has subsequently been appealed by the applicant. All public comments made under the original WBC application are still valid and will be considered as part of the appeal. If however you missed the deadline to comment on the original application you can make an online 'representation' to the planning inspectorate.
Direct link to the planning inspectorate website to submit an online comment to the appeal, reference number APP/W0340/W/17/3170267:
acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3170267
Deadline for public submissions to the appeal process: 23rd October 2017
A hearing to determine this appeal will be held at West Berkshire Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, at 10am on 22nd November 2017. Members of the public may attend this hearing by contacting WBC in advance - please email [email protected] or call (01635) 519111.
For more information on the planning appeal process please see the West Berkshire Council website at: info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29005
16/03303/FUL | Use of land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site consisting of two pitches each with 1 no. mobile home and 1 no. touring caravan, conversion of existing stables building into utility dayroom and farriers workshop. | Stables Adjacent To Curridge House Curridge Road Curridge Thatcham Berkshire
Direct link to West Berkshire District Council Planning Portal showing the original application:
planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=16/03303/FUL
This application was refused by West Berkshire Council in January 2017, and has subsequently been appealed by the applicant. All public comments made under the original WBC application are still valid and will be considered as part of the appeal. If however you missed the deadline to comment on the original application you can make an online 'representation' to the planning inspectorate.
Direct link to the planning inspectorate website to submit an online comment to the appeal, reference number APP/W0340/W/17/3170267:
acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3170267
Deadline for public submissions to the appeal process: 23rd October 2017
A hearing to determine this appeal will be held at West Berkshire Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, at 10am on 22nd November 2017. Members of the public may attend this hearing by contacting WBC in advance - please email [email protected] or call (01635) 519111.
For more information on the planning appeal process please see the West Berkshire Council website at: info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=29005
Site History
Bluebell Stables on Curridge Road has a long history of attempted residential development since the stables were first approved in 1983. The most recent application in 2013 (with appeal rejected in 2014) was to convert the stable ‘shell’ into a bungalow, and was itself a re-submission of an application from 2001. The application was refused on grounds of:
- Outside the settlement boundary
- In the AONB
- Greenfield site with loss of agricultural / equestrian facilities
2013_bungalow_site_plan.pdf | |
File Size: | 414 kb |
File Type: |
2013_planning_officer_report.pdf | |
File Size: | 56 kb |
File Type: |
2013_refusal_decision.pdf | |
File Size: | 147 kb |
File Type: |
Current Application
With regard to points (1) and (2) of the last bungalow refusal, nothing has changed since 2013. The settlement boundary has been key to the defence against the two recent new development applications in the village, even though both sites adjoined the existing boundary. Bluebell Stables does not (see Settlement Boundary).
The defence of the AONB (see AONB) could arguably be a stronger case than in 2013, and for the recent new build applications in the village, due to the limited architectural merit of the two proposed mobile homes.
Point (3) from the previous refusal also still stands but is likely to be where the applicant will be hoping to score some credit with the planners to convince them that this application has a justification not met by the previous development plans for this green field site.
OBJECTION 1. There is no justification for allowing this development against planning policy based on the intended use of the site.
- The applicant wants to convert the stable block into a ‘dayroom’, i.e. a living space for a family with kitchen and bathroom facilities, and farrier’s workshop.
- The applicant is a licensed farrier and may have benefit from a workshop, in much the same way as lots of people use their own domestic garage or shed; Farriers usually travel to clients’ sites to shoe the horses rather than work from a home address and the applicant's own design statement submitted with the preceding (rejected) application for the site (Schedule of proposed conditions, section 6) stated specifically that "No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials".
- Without animals staying on site a business purpose, it removes any possible agricultural justification for mitigating against planning policy to allow a residential development in this location. The proposed development removes all equestrian stabling on site so any form of equestrian use would cease to be an option anyway.
- This application is therefore solely for the purpose of a residential development, and should be refused on exactly the same grounds as the previous bungalow application in 2013.
OBJECTION 2. There is no justification for allowing this development against planning policy based on the occupation of the applicant, despite links to the equestrian industry.
- The applicant’s current address according to the Farriers Registration Council is a house in Chiseldon, Wiltshire, a distance of 19 miles (even for a crow). Using the FRC website, a search for local farriers returns:
- 6 within a 5 mile radius of Curridge
- 22 within a 10 mile radius
- 63 within a 15 mile radius
- 98 within a 20 mile radius
- If the applicant is therefore barely in the top 100 farriers closest to Curridge, it seems unlikely that he already has a significant business in this area. His own social media account promotes his business as "Farrier Wiltshire & Gloucestershire".
- There is no demonstrable need to bring another farrier into the area that might mitigate against general planning policy, as there is no local skills shortage for work of this nature.
OBJECTION 3. Given the visible state of disrepair of the existing stables structure, approval of this application is highly likely to lead to the unauthorized construction of a more utilitarian replacement building on the site once works begin.
- The poor condition of the existing stable block (now over 30 years old) was noted by the planning inspector 3 years ago, and the building has visibly deteriorated further since that time.
- If the developer is not forced to maintain the existing structure, or claims it to be unsuitable, then it is highly likely that a replacement structure will be erected on site without regard to the planning consent and a long enforcement or retrospective planning battle will ensue.
- It is considered highly likely that this is part of a deliberate plan to present an unfeasible development scheme to the council in order to seek approval, and then force changes later once works have started on other parts of the project.
OBJECTION 4. The applicant (and consultant) are seeking to use obscure legal arguments to justify exception to local planning policies when it is abundantly clear that any normal residential planning application would not be allowed or welcomed in this location, as tested on numerous occasions in the past.
In the re-submitted application for this site, a new design and access statement has been included, focussing on a legal argument regarding how this specific site may meet the special circumstances that would justify approval of development sites outside of the West Berkshire District Council's Housing Site Allocations DPD , however it includes some glaringly obvious errors to anyone familiar with Curridge and serves only to highlight the 'copy and paste' methodology employed by the planning consultant engaged by the applicant. Specifically:
"Safe and easy access to major roads and public transport services;
Given that planning permission was granted for the stables building with the associated vehicle
movements with horse boxes and similar vehicles to services that development, it is clear that this
criterion is met"
The justification presented based on the previous equestrian use (granted 30 years ago) applies only to the access to major roads. The nearest access point for public transport (not including the dedicated school bus service to The Downs secondary school) is the bus stop located on the B4009 at the north end of the village, a distance of 1.2km following Curridge Road and 1km if following a rural footpath. Neither route is street lit. The bus stop serves only a single bus route (no 6) between Newbury and West Ilsley, so Curridge can hardly be considered a major hub for public transport links.
"Easy access to local services including a bus route, shops, schools and health services;
The site is within walking distances of the local school on paved footways that are lit. Bus services run
within close proximity of the site. This criterion is also met."
Afraid not. The paved footpath is not continuous to Curridge Primary School, neither is there any municipal street lighting along the route of approximately 350m (either via Chapel Lane or through Curridge Playground).
Curridge is not a designated 'service village', with only one general shop in the main village located at Chieveley Motor Company (at least 1km by foot), or the shop at Denison Barracks (1.3km). There are no public health services in the village, with residents needing to travel to the Downland Practice in Chieveley (2.7km as the crow flies, much further by car or on foot).
"Opportunities for an element of authorised mixed uses;
The application involves an element of a mixed-use as the applicant is himself a farrier and proposes to
have his workshop within the existing building. This criterion is met."
Make up your own mind on this one. As already highlighted in objection 1 above, a statement submitted with the preceding application stated "No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials". Sounds like the workshop is a token gesture in the planning application to try to tick this box, when really the application is all about circumventing normal planning policy that would and should prevent a residential development in this location.