Future of Wroxhall pilates studio could be in doubt after councillors refuse retrospective planning permission

The future of a pilates studio based on a Wroxall farm could be in doubt after retrospective permission for a change of use was turned down by councillors.

Members of this week’s [TUE] planning committee of Warwick District Council were informed that a previous application for the change of use for the former barn at Wattcote Farm in Manor Lane had been refused earlier this year but that plans for the business had continued and that members of the public were now using the facility.

Agent Joe Bennett, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said that the business - Pilates Gallery - was primarily a one-on-one pilates studio that fulfilled a local need.

He added: “Clients live in nearby villages and dwellings and could cycle to the site if they wanted to.

"In these challenging economic circumstances, the council should be seeking to positively encourage employment generation regardless of scale.”

Mr Bennett explained that it would not be suitable for the owner of the business to relocate to a nearby town because she looked after an elderly relative and cared for two small children.”

But a report outlining the application explained that a pilates studio was classed as a leisure facility and that the local plan stated that these should be located in town centres or in edge-of-centre locations.

If that was not possible then sites needed to be easily accessible using sustainable forms of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport; or served a local community who would not need to drive there.

The report added: “The only means of access to the site is by use of a car. There are no footpaths which would allow pedestrians to walk to the site and there are no public transport facilities which would allow access to the site. It therefore cannot be considered that the site can be accessed using sustainable forms of transport.”

Planning officer Rob Young added: “For a business of this nature it is unlikely that the majority of the customers are going to come from a walking or cycling distance away.”

And when asked what had changed since the original application for a change of use, he added: “The situation remains the same. From the applicant’s point of view they have submitted more justification this time but that’s not considered to outweigh the reasons for refusal.”

Councillors voted to refuse permission.