The Stables, Ledstone

The Stables, Ledstone

Change of use from the existing stable building (agriculture) to commercial
The application site

The problem with this application, the Society explained, is that the application title for the proposal was incorrect. Having reviewed the site planning history, there was no evidence to confirm the claim that the stables were built to support an agricultural need.

In addition condition 6 of planning application 08/1071/00/F made it clear 'the proposed stable blocks shall not be used on a commercial basis’. And the original application was made for stables to be used on a purely private basis with no link to agriculture. The keeping as opposed to the grazing of horses is not classed as agriculture.

As a consequence some of the statements made by the applicant's agent in support of the proposal were immaterial, while the location itself was wholly inappropriate for commercial activity, given the proximity of more suitable locations nearby.

Both the Parish Council and Devon County Council Highways also submitted objections.

As the Decision Notice made clear: 'the proposal fails to demonstrate an occupational need for a countryside location, and is considered to result in unsustainable development in the countryside', while 'the proposed change of use is considered to be incompatible with the rural road network accessing the site, which is unsuitable to accommodate the potential increase in vehicle journeys to and from the site resulting from the development.'

The application was refused, but the decision appealed, with the applicant arguing 'the proposals are entirely appropriate, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, and the adopted Local Plan Policy.'

In our response to the appeal, which you can read by clicking on the link to our second representation, we noted that when the case officer had originally recommended refusal she had written:

Most of the objections received have stated that the proposal would breach the original conditions placed on the site when planning permission was granted for the stable. Whilst this is true, as condition 6 prohibited commercial use of the stables, that condition only relates to that planning permission, and there is nothing to prevent an applicant from applying for a different use; this is new application which will be assessed on its own merits against current policy, and the imposition of a condition 23 years ago would not preclude the landowner from applying for the use now’.

We disagreed, pointing out the condition related not to the planning permission, but to the development itself. We also noted the proposed change of use was not fit for purpose without significant changes being made to the building itself, and that therefore the plans submitted were not realistic.

The Inspector's decision is awaited.