Agenda item

Field 8636, Eastwell Road, Waltham on the Wolds

Applicant:      Mr and Mrs Newton

Location:        Field 8636 Eastwell Road Waltham

Proposal:       Relocation of Hop Inn Rabbit Hotel and construction of storage buildings.

 

(a)       The Regulatory Services Manager stated that:

 

Updates –

 

1. Parish Council   concerns about sustainability and viability of new dwelling in this location .

 

2. Email  from agent – considers that email of 5th Sept 2017 has not been addressed . The points in that email were summarised and answered by the RSM. In summary, he did not consider that it raised any material considerations of sufficient  relevance or weight to make a difference to the recommendation to recommend that permission should be refused.

 

The proposed site is a 7 acre plot of land in the open countryside on the road between Waltham and Eastwell. The adjacent triangular piece of land bordered by the road network has over past years been subdivided up into various paddocks and small farming enterprises.

 

 Hop Inn provides pet boarding facilities which accommodate House Rabbits and Guinea Pigs and involves the storage and sale of pet play products “Hop Inn” branded speciality tunnels, cubes and hideouts.  Hop Inn was established 5 years ago in a barn attached to a grade 2 listed building situated in the conservation village of Stonesby.

 

The applicants argue that there is an established business model and client base of 150+ and that there is now the opportunity to create the first bespoke rabbit and guinea pig hotel in the UK.

 

The proposal comprises accommodation, both residential to the occupant and business to the rabbits with increased outdoor grazing area, the applicant also wishes to broaden the operating base by growing and selling quality meadow hay and continuing to grow Christmas Trees (existing on land) and would also provide education services at the new business location.  The proposal also includes a number of storage buildings, garages and barns.

 

The NPPF at para 55 states that should avoid isolated dwellings in the countryside unless there are  special circumstances .  It is not considered that there are sufficient special circumstances in this case.

 

Support expert advice that this is a non-rural enterprise proposed to relocate on a green field in the open countryside. It should be assessed under normal planning  policies and not as an agricultural  dwelling or other rural occupation

 

(b)       Mr Richard Cooper, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           28.5% increase in profit.

•           Business is financially sustainable.

•           There is a need for a dwelling.

•           They will seek to protect the countryside.

•           Supports sustainable growth in rural areas and assessed as suitable.

•           Additional use of all land for grazing.

•           Increase business by the sale of meadow hay, Christmas tree growing and supporting vet students.

•           Social and economic benefits.

•           They would consider a tie on dwelling to prevent future use without the business.

 

A Cllr asked if the applicant was in receipt of a single farm payment.

 

Mrs Newton stated she was unable to answer the question.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification of the garden access for the rabbits.

 

Mrs Newton responded that the house rabbits go outside and graze as well as living in house. They have evenings in the home but they need to graze for their health and well being.

 

A Cllr commented that they didn’t feel that the budget could accommodate paying extra staff and also felt the current location had further potential to house more animals.

 

Mr Cooper responded that it is the grazing area that needs the relocation. It also for diversification which can’t be done in their current location.

 

Cllrs raised question regarding the occupancy and length of stays.

 

Mr Cooper noted that there are currently 3 pairs of rabbits, 2 single rabbits and 2 guinea pigs residing at the hotel. The business is on track for November occupancy. December is busier. Demonstrated there are peaks and troughs throughout the year.

 

Mrs Newton stated that the animal often stay for 2 weeks but sometimes longer. Some stay for 2 months.

 

A Cllr asked how much grazing space the animals need at the highest level of capacity.

 

Mrs Newton responded that they need space to move the hutches rounds on to clean bits of area.

 

Mr Cooper stated 1100 square metres. In the context of residential lawns of 80 square metres. To allow for peak occupancy and rotation of runs.

 

A Cllr asked what the space in the buildings would be used for.

 

Mr Cooper responded that there would be 3 buildings. 1 barn for agricultural equipment, 1 for storage for the internet business and 1 housing people and rabbits.

 

The Regulatory Services Manager noted that the NPPF states that isolated dwellings should not be encouraged unless in defined circumstances. This is due to the sustainability of an isolated dwelling. The NPPF does have an economic role

 

Cllr Rhodes proposed approval of the application. We should promote and encourage rural enterprise and it is not going to be significant harm. Don’t agree with agricultural appraisal.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded the proposal.

 

Cllrs raised concerns regarding the unsustainability, the proposed income from the meadow hay and Christmas trees, the viability of the site and the safety of the animals from surrounding wildlife and the temperature when outside. It was suggested that they could approve temporary living accommodation until the business proves viable.

 

The Chair  reminded Members that the welfare of the animals is not a planning matter.

 

A Cllr felt that it was not trying to be an agricultural business but was a business in a rural location and offered their support.

 

The Regulatory Services Manger advised Members that they could condition the occupancy, tying it to this particular business.

 

Cllrs felt that this would be unenforceable once the dwelling was built.

 

There were discussions regarding other rural businesses such as kennels and catteries and the Chair reminded Members that the dwellings were there before they became those type of businesses.

 

A vote was taken. 5 Members voted for approval  and 6 Members voted against. The proposal to permit was lost.

 

Cllr Faulkner proposed refusal of the application on the grounds recommended by officers.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the proposal but added that she may consider a mobile home but not a dwelling.

 

Cllr Faulkner commented that he did not wish to add to his proposal.

 

Cllr Cumbers noted that she would still second the proposal.

 

Another vote was taken. 6 Members voted in favour of refusal and 5 Members voted against.

           

Determination: REFUSE, for the following reason:

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, if approved, result in the erection of a residential dwelling in an unsustainable location. The development is in an unsustainable village location where there are limited local amenities, facilities and jobs, and where future residents are likely to depend highly on the use of the car, contrary to the advice contained in NPPF in promoting sustainable development. It is considered that there is insufficient reason to depart from the guidance given in the NPPF on sustainable development in this location and would therefore be contrary to the "core planning principles contained" within Paragraph 17 of the NPPF.