Agenda item

Deferred

The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mrs Bowland (Sustead Parish Council)

Mrs Williamson (objecting)

Mr A Temperton (supporting)

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  He explained that the photographs had been taken in 2018 and the site was now more overgrown.  He referred to an email which had been circulated to the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor J Toye, local Member, questioned whether the proposal was a suitable development for Sustead.  The previous scaffold yard had 2-4 small lorries which operated outside of peak times.  The proposed container yard and open storage could have many different users and most traffic would come from outside the village and include many more journeys by large vehicles.  He referred to the Spatial Strategy which addressed the need to reduce travel and encourage other modes of transport.  He considered that the proposed use would bring traffic into conflict with other forms of transport as the road network was used by horse riders and included the Weavers Way and National Cycle Route 33.  He referred to a number of comments in the report which were not supportive of this application.  He expressed concern that the proposal could cause more run-off due to the increased amount of ground which would be covered by the development, with the potential for pollutants to enter the waterways.  He stated that part of the lane to the front of the property had permission to be stopped up and a fence would further reduce visibility.  He considered that approval of this application would compromise the Spatial Strategy with regard to the need to reduce travel and would challenge the Core Strategy policies which aimed to enhance and protect the character of the countryside, landscape and local environment.

Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer stated that she was speaking as County Councillor for Sustead.  The previous scaffolding company had vacated the site a number of years previously which had immeasurably improved the quality of life for residents.  With regard to Policy EN2, Sustead was a tiny hamlet and very rural and the proposed containers would be damaging to the environment.  She accepted that the site needed tidying up but a planning application should not be used to do so.  She recommended that enforcement action be taken to tidy the site.  She considered that the amenity value would be hugely impacted by the proposal.  With regard to traffic, there was no speed limit and the lane was mostly single track with poor visibility.  Only one of the roads which converged on the site could be used to transport larger items and bring in the containers.  There were other commercial sites in the village but these were cottage industries which did not impinge on the village or its residents.    She considered that this was the wrong site for the proposed use and the landscape should be protected and enhanced.

Councillor Dr C Stockton stated that the site was very close to Spurrell’s Wood, which local residents and others had turned into a natural environment, and the Felbeck Trust had recently received an environment award for its work at Sustead Common.  He considered that this was not an appropriate site for a container yard and there were no guarantees as to other equipment that could be stored on the site.  He considered that vehicles coming in and out of the site would affect the amenity of the village.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett considered that the proposed use was totally inappropriate.  She stated that this was a brownfield site and considered that there was an opportunity to use it for property development.

Councillor N Pearce referred to the conclusion in the report which stated that the proposal would not be acceptable if it were new development.  He considered that the proposal could potentially be considered as new development given the length of time the site had been vacant.

The Major Projects Manager stated that he had concerns as to whether the 2008 planning permission for extension of the scaffolding yard had been implemented.  If it had not, a large part of the site would be removed from the application.  He acknowledged that the traffic movements associated with the previous use as a scaffolding site would be very different from a site with individual storage units with many more traffic movements in and out, which could amount to intensification of use of the site.  He stated that there was no proposal for dwellings before the Committee and weight could not be given to it.  He advised the Committee to defer consideration of this application for clarification as to the possible intensification of the use of the site and whether or not the 2008 permission (PLA/20081174) had been implemented.

Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer considered that the application should be refused on highway grounds.  In the event of deferral, she requested a strong highways report.  She also requested that consideration be given to the visibility splay.

The Major Projects Manager explained that the Highway Authority’s position would be affected by the implementation or otherwise of the 2008 permission and possible intensification of use of the site.

Councillor T Adams requested that concerns regarding impact of water run off on the common and whether it would be a consideration following intensification of the site should be addressed.

Councillor A Brown requested that a copy of the 2008 permission be appended to the next report.

It was proposed by Councillor A Brown, seconded by Councillor A Yiasimi and

RESOLVED unanimously

That consideration of this application be deferred:

1.       To investigate whether or not permission PLA/20081174 had been validly implemented;

2.       To consider possible intensification of use of the site;

3.       To obtain a further highways report, including consideration of the visibility splay.

4.       To address concerns regarding the impact of water run off.