The last two months have been interesting ones for Prism and their equestrian clients with two interesting cases coming to a head in very different cases but both being horse related.
In the first case, clients had received an enforcement notice requiring them to remove their two horses and stables from their garden. The LPA had decided that ‘Elvis’ and ‘Sparkplug’, two lovely moorland cobs, represented unauthorised development by changing the use of the original garden. In fact the horses occupied less than half the garden and only then over the winter period. During the summer they grazed fields away from the home. The Council argued they caused smells, flies, attracted vermin and caused a loss of privacy to the neighbours, some of whom objected to the horses looking over the boundary fence. Comparisons were made by the LPA to the famous shark emerging from the roof of the house in Oxford, as well as the man who erected a model of a Spitfire in his back garden. We contended that neither of these bizarre examples were remotely comparable with our situation.
Thankfully the inspector agreed and granted permission for the horse to stay, as well as their stable block, leaving two very happy horses owners. The case highlights how matters can escalate when LPA’s get complaints about unauthorised development and show why it is important that good, knowledgeable advice is obtained at the earliest possible opportunity.
The second case, also horse related was equally bizarre but for very different reasons. Our client and his wife are running a successful and well established livery yard, despite being in their 80’s and with one of them being registered disabled! They have decided that at their time of life they want to ease up a little and employ a manager to do the heavy and antisocial work, including chasing after escaped horses at 3am! A planning application was lodged for replacement managers accommodation, something we have done on several occasions for clients. The case was supported by specialist Equine Vets and the BHS.
Many weeks after the statutory determination date and with several promised deadlines from the Council missed, in frustration we appealed against non-determination and asked for a hearing. At the same time we also re-submitted the same planning application back to the LPA to allow them to try to reach a decision on it with more time. This resulted in a speedy approval – something which the LPA cold and should have done first time around. However the LPA imposed a whole series of conditions on their decision, preventing all possible future expansion or improvement to the property. Accordingly the appeal is still progressing albeit now just relating to what conditions should, or should not be imposed in these type of situations.
This second case has also given rise to a claim for costs – clearly the LPA could and should have approved the initial application in a timely manner, as they proved by supporting the second application when the appeal focused their minds!
Sadly, as cuts to services in local government planning departments continue to ‘bite’, we are all probably going to have to get used to poorer levels of service and situations like this might become all too common. It remains to be seen whether LPA’s will find new ways to work in such climates or continue to cling to established and out of date practices.
Anyone with an equine related problem will appreciate from the above examples that we know a thing or two about horses and the planning system – and an initial chat about how we might be able to help is free, wherever you are in the country.
News & Blog
Equestrian Cases
From the Archive
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- January 2011
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
Categories
- Affordable Housing
- agriculture
- anaerobic digestion
- Appeals
- Certificate of Lawful Development
- Conferences & Events
- Conservation
- Development Control
- energy
- Enforcement
- Environment
- Environmental Impact Assessment
- Housing
- Listed Building
- Localism
- Neighbourhood Planning
- new jobs
- NPPF
- Objection Letter
- Planning Policy
- Prism News
- Public Consultation
- Regeneration
- renewable energy
- retail
- Rural
- Uncategorized
Tags
agricultural
anaerobic digestion
appeal
appeal costs
application
approval
changes
committee
consultation
demolition
developer
development
Development Control
environmental impact assessment
Equestrian
government
hartlepool
housing
localism
National Planning Policy Framework
natural england
news
NPPF
permission
planning
planning appeal
Planning Committee
planning consultant
planning inspectorate
planning permission
policy
prism
Prism News
prism planning
protected species
refusal
renewable energy
residential
rural development
seminar
stockton
success
sustainable
viability
yarm