The Planning Committee has decided to grant permission for the use of an existing equestrian building for events, with additional conditions to address concerns raised by local stakeholders.

URL: https://democracy.winchester.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1368

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Proposal Description: Item 7: Use of existing equestrian building to include equestrian events and partial retention of hardstanding to form associated parking area (Amended Description and Plans)              The Chairperson announced that determination of this application was to be moved to the first item of the afternoon session at 2pm.   The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full the following:   (i)            An email received from Shedfield Parish Council on 2 June 2025.               In response, the amendments to the scheme were discussed with                Hampshire County Council as Highways Authority. It was considered       by Hampshire that as the changes to the application were a reduction   in the wider scheme, that was originally considered to be acceptable in            terms of Highways impacts, and the Transport assessment had not             been updated to reflect the changes. Therefore, they would not                  comment further on the scheme and the assessment of the Local              Planning Authority was that the arrangements and parking will not give   rise to harm to the Highways or safety of its users . (ii)          Changes to conditions as follows:             Condition 3 – change trigger to ‘within 3 months of the date of this               permission, details of surface water drainage works…’             Condition 6 – change trigger to ‘A detailed scheme for landscaping,            tree and/or shrub planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this               permission…’             Condition 8 – change trigger to ‘Details of any external lighting of the          site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning    Authority within 3 months of the issue of this permission…’             Condition 10 – change trigger to ‘Within 3 months of the date of this            permission, visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m shall be implemented…’             These have been changed to reflect the reasonable assumption that           the temporary car park in place will be used for event parking prior to       the approved layout of the car park being fully implemented.   (iii)         Additional condition as follows:               Condition 12. The use of the building approved under 12/02417/FUL           shall be limited solely to use for a commercial livery, riding school, and           associated equestrian events. The Equestrian events hereby permitted         shall not exceed 52 events per calendar year commencing from the         date of this permission.               Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the proposed     development is carried out in accordance with the plans and       documents from which the permission relates and to prevent           inappropriate levels of development within the countryside.   During public participation, Joanna Harvey spoke in objection to the application and Patrick Barry spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.   Councillor Wallace spoke as contiguous Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Wallace raised the following points:   1.         Councillor Wallace noted members' familiarity with the site, stating   there had been numerous applications, mainly retrospective, and a lot            of ongoing enforcement activities, including those called out in the    current application. 2.         He specifically mentioned that the first-floor dwellings on the site and          the cafe were excluded from the current application because they were       under enforcement right now. 3.         Councillor Wallace highlighted that the issues on site had been         ongoing for a long time, with an unfortunate pattern of not complying      with any part of the planning process. 4.         He stated that the presence of two councillors reflected the wider     concerns local residents had about the activities on the site as a whole. 5.         Regarding this particular application, he outlined concerns about noise,      traffic impact, access arrangements, impact on the rural character    (being in a countryside location), and the ecological impact. 6.         He indicated that Councillor Achwal would elaborate on why they     believed the application should be refused. 7.         If minded to approve the application, Councillor Wallace urged the   committee to consider modifying some of the conditions,            specifically the modification of condition 8 around external lighting to       limit the hours to one hour either side of permitted event times, defining     that the lighting shall not be switched on between the hours of 9:00 pm         and 7:00 am. 8.         In addition, he also suggested modifying condition 12 to include a    definition of equestrian events and to specify the maximum number of events as four per month, ensuring they were not all happening at the      same time of the year, which would have an impact on local residents.   Councillor V Achwal spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Achwal raised the following points:   1.         Councillor Achwal thanked the committee for changing the application        hearing to the afternoon, explaining that the applicant had another    application scheduled for the same morning at Hampshire County          Council. 2.         She stated that she had successfully requested officers and the       committee chairperson at Hampshire County Council to defer that         meeting due to a lack of evidence, resulting in a site visit being      scheduled for next month. A course of action she also suggested for           this committee. 3.         She emphasised that the council supported businesses but stressed           that these needed to be in the right place. 4.         She noted that this was the third application on this site, which         remained in a countryside location. 5.         She echoed the objectors view that the ongoing development was a            "shanty town happening under our eyes". 6.         Councillor Achwal argued that the development did not have an       operational need in the countryside in this location, citing policies MT4 and DM10, and stated that there was no business case to prove the     need, given several existing wedding venues nearby. 7.         She asserted that the development did not minimise visual impact   (citing policy DM12), stating that the impact on neighbours was          dreadful. 8.         She highlighted that the development involved hard standing parking          for vehicles (citing policy DM2) and noted that applicants had recently      been allowed to create a car park without planning permission at the front of the site, indicating a pattern of non-compliance that continues. 9.         Councillor Achwal conveyed that local residents were ‘fed up’ and    made reference to the Human Rights Act which stated that residents   have a right to enjoyment of their back gardens, a right currently            undermined by with excessive noise pollution from the site leading to a             serious impact on the mental health of several residents, including stress, anxiety and sleep disturbances. 10.       She referred to a lack of community engagement and a clear business       case for the development and highlighted inconsistencies in the     submitted paperwork, specifically noting that the travel survey       estimated 100 guests, while the noise survey estimated between 150          and 200 guests. 11.       She further identified discrepancies in parking estimates, with the noise      survey suggesting 50 vehicles would be needed, but the travel survey      stated only 27 spaces were required, concluding that the plans not         clear. 12.       Reference was made to accident data for the road which was not up to       date, citing a fatality of a 20-year-old male opposite the junction at   Chalky Lane last year, and stated she was still awaiting an update from          the traffic police on this. 13.       In conclusion, she urged the committee to defer the application until            accurate up to date data was available.   The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.               RESOLVED:                           The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and         subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the        Update Sheet, and subject to the following additional conditions and           amendments:   (i)            An amendment to condition 8: ‘External lighting shall be limited to one hour either side of permitted event times, with no external lighting permitted between the hours of 21:00 hours and 07:00 hours’.   (ii)          An amendment to condition 12 to read: ‘equestrian events shall not exceed 48 events per calendar year, with no more than four events in any calendar month, commencing from the date of this permission’.   (iii)         Additional condition: A register of all events taking place on site, including a full attendance record and details of the event, shall be retained, maintained and made available for inspection upon request by the Local Planning Authority.  

Date of Decision: June 11, 2025