Petition launched over Blidworth green belt planning row

Horse owners had erected a string of paddocks off New Lane, Blidworth, to provide shelter for their animals.

The 60-acre site – split into 15 paddocks was sold off by its previous owner and is now home to 33 horses, many of whom are ill and elderly.

However, horse owners were told that they needed planning permission for developments – and now the council has rejected them all, leaving horse owners concerned for the welfare of their animals.

Since the enforcement notice dispute began, horse owners from the paddocks are now questioning how their case has been handled.

Sam Reavley, a resident who co-owns a horse with his parents, claims this is due to a ‘mishandling’ from the planning department.

Sam has since launched a petition on behalf of the paddock owners, demanding that Newark and Sherwood remove the enforcement notices. The petition has received over 700 signatures with a target of 1,000.

Sam said: “This is now about more than just planning permission and animal welfare. It is a question of credibility for the council. There has been an inconsistency with rules from the start.

”The council has never provided evidence or an explanation as to how our proposed developments would – as they incorrectly theorise – harm the Green Belt.

”There are plenty of similar developments in the area that the council have never questioned or challenged.

”We were also informed from the council’s information and governance officer that there was a data breach caused by human error.

”You really have to question the credibility of a council office that can’t take care of personal data.

”I would like to point out that the council did not even apologise for this.”

Sam has emailed the group’s concerns regarding the council’s handling of the planning dispute to Newark and Sherwood council.

Councillor Roger Blaney, Chair of the planning committee at Newark and Sherwood council, said: “The planning enforcement notices outlines the reason why they were served, including harm to the Green Belt and other considerations such as how the lawful use of the land is for agriculture, not for equestrian purposes.

”Any development on the land – including makeshift shelters – requires planning permission.

”Despite retrospective planning permission being sought for the change of the use of land, national policy directs that local planning authorities should regard construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate – with such developments being, by definition, harmful.

”The council considers its decision to refuse planning permission to accord with local guidance and existing case law nationally.

”We have acknowledged that there was an error in issuing two enforcement notices.

”This was fully investigated in accordance with our data breach policy and procedure – the case has been closed.

”Each planning application and enforcement case is considered on its own merits.

”It would not be fair for the council to comment on planning applications that have been determined by neighbouring authorities.

”Land owners are entitled to appeal against the council’s decision to the planning inspectorate.”