Appeal 6005377

The appeal is dismissed.

On my site visit I observed that the appeal development was at an advanced stage of construction but was not complete. Planning permission is therefore sought, in part, retrospectively. As the development is not complete, I have considered the appeal based on the submitted plans. However, in considering the effects on the second main issue, I have considered that part of the appeal based both on the plans and what I saw on site.

The main issues are: a) Whether there is an established operational need for the development; and, b) The effect of the development on trees.

The appeal site relates to an equestrian complex within an open countryside location. In such areas Policy STRAT9 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]): [name] (the LP P1) seeks to restrict development to that which requires a countryside location. STRAT9 sets out the types of development which may be permitted in such areas, which includes development which has an operational need for a countryside location. Policy DM8 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]): [name] and [name] (the LP P2) relates to equestrian development and encourages the utilisation of existing rural buildings, and identifies that any additional buildings should be essential to the operational need of the facility. It is clear from these policies that equestrian development in a countryside location may be acceptable where there is an identified essential need.

It is understood that the site is in private use and does not operate as an equine business. The complex includes a stable block, riding surface, lunge pen, a storage/hay barn, field structures and paddocks. On my site visit, I observed a number of horses within the paddocks and that the stable block and the storage barn were well utilised. There was little apparent space for additional storage within these buildings.

The appeal relates to the construction of a new building which would provide a tack room, internal viewing area and covered terrace. It is understood that the tack room would be used for the storage of saddles, bridles and rugs for the 5 horses stabled at the site. I agree that the storage of such equipment would be essential for an equestrian operation.

However, no evidence has been provided which demonstrates where tack is currently stored on site and that this existing storage is insufficient. This absence of information means there is little before me to suggest that the existing buildings cannot accommodate the storage of tack for the five horses on site. While it is suggested that the hay barn is unsuitable, no detailed assessment has been provided. I am therefore not persuaded that additional dedicated storage space has been demonstrated as essential.

I acknowledge that the existing buildings appear well-used, although there is no quantified assessment of the operational floorspace required for the facility. Without such information, I cannot be satisfied that the proposed tack room represents essential additional floorspace which is required for the facility.

I also note that the proposed tack room is detached from the stable block, separated by a mature landscaping. In addition, the building is not directly accessible by any hardstanding area. There is little information before me which demonstrates why the tack room should be provided in this location. Therefore, operationally, the tack room does not appear to be conveniently located to serve its intended use.

The building also proposes an equestrian viewing area, along with a covered terrace. These represent the larger part of the building. As the site does not operate as a commercial equestrian business, there is no operational requirement for a sheltered viewing area for visitors. The scale of the proposed viewing space also appears to be disproportionate to any functional need, which could be carried out from a much smaller area. Nonetheless, I am not persuaded that the internal viewing facility is essential for the routine observation of horses. Therefore, this part of the development appears to be desirable rather than essential.

I accept the importance of equine welfare, although no cogent evidence has been provided which indicates that a dedicated internal viewing area is essential for the wellbeing of horses. I am also unclear of the instances and regularity for when the day-to-day observation of a horse turned out in the paddock may be required. In addition, the building’s orientation has its main outlook towards the storage/hay barn rather than the paddocks and lunge pen. Therefore, even if some form of sheltered viewing were justified, I could not be satisfied that the building is designed to effectively serve that purpose.

I acknowledge that in 2005 planning permission was granted for a larger building at the site1. This was some time ago and was considered under a different planning climate. In addition, that scheme related to a storage building and indoor riding arena rather than the tack room and viewing area. The schemes are therefore materially different. In any event, I have considered this proposal on its merits.

For the above reason, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that there is an established operational need for the development. Therefore, the development is contrary to Policy STRAT9 of the LP P1 and Policy DM8 of the LP P2.

The building has been constructed close to a hedgerow which contains two large oak trees. The submitted tree survey (the TS) identifies these as being [name] trees2, which are trees of a high quality. The trees are tall with a good canopy form and structure and I have no reason to disagree with this categorisation.

The building is partially located within the Root Protection Area of T1. I understand from the TS that the degree of incursion within the RPA amounts to 16.86%. It is suggested that this does not exceed an accepted tolerance of 20% recommended by BS5837:20123. The TS confirms that this incursion is likely to have resulted in direct damage to the tree through root loss. It is understood from the TS that the development is likely to have resulted in indirect harm to the tree during construction through changes to the soil profile and compaction.

The TS suggests that the direct damage to the tree is likely to have been minimal while there is likely to have been minor effect overall on the health of the tree4. The TS concludes that there is a high probability that the tree would survive with only some canopy decline over the affected root area. The TS makes a number of recommendations5 for measures to be carried out to the soils and the laying of woodchip. It also recommends future assessment of the tree after 36 months.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by the Council. However, I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the effects on the tree would be any greater than those identified within the TS. As noted above, the TS concludes that the effects on the tree and its health have been minor/minimal and that there is a high probability of its future retention. My observations on site did not lead me to conclude anything to the contrary. The mitigation measures suggested within the TS also appear to be reasonable and proportionate to the limited scale of harm to the tree that may have arisen. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to persuade me otherwise I do not agree that there has been a significant effect on the health of T1.

For the above reasons, the development would not have a harmful effect on trees. The development therefore accords with Policy DM45 of the LP P2 which seeks to conserve existing trees. 1 Application Ref: APP/2004/1817 2 Tree T1 and T2 within Post Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by Treestyle Consultancy Ltd 3 TS paragraph 5.2.4 4 TS paragraph 5.6.4 5 TS Section 10 - Recommendations

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.