Agenda item

Indicate to the Planning Inspector that the Committee would have refused (final decision to be made by Planning Inspector as appeal against non-determination lodged by applicant)

Public Speakers

Mrs Bowland (Sustead Parish Council)

Mrs Williamson (objecting)

Mr Temperton (supporting)

The Acting Development Manager explained that since deferral of this application at the previous meeting, the applicant had submitted an appeal against non-determination to the Planning Inspectorate and the Committee now had to confirm the decision it would have made. 

The Acting Development Manager updated the Committee with regard to the matters for which the application had been deferred.  No further information had been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the 2008 permission to extend the scaffold yard had been implemented.  However, photographs had been supplied by the neighbour which indicated that, on the balance of probabilities, the permission had not been implemented.

The Highway Authority considered that the highway impact of the proposed use would be similar to the scaffold yard use and the access had been improved in the past.   The movement of the containers would be short-lived and similar to construction traffic bringing materials to the site and other traffic movements associated with the use would be by private vehicles.  The Highway Authority could therefore not substantiate an objection to this application. 

It was considered that surface water run off could be dealt with by conditions.

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  He referred to a letter that had been received from the Chair of the Felbeck Trust, which had been circulated to Members.  Given the established use of the site, with reluctance, the Acting Development Manager recommended the Committee to confirm that it would have approved the application subject to conditions.

Councillor J Toye, the local Member, referred to the comments he had made at the previous meeting.  He considered that it was clear that everyone, including the applicant, considered that the site was not the right place to put containers.  He referred to the reluctance with which the Acting Development Manager made his recommendation.  The question of housing had been raised, and whilst he was open to discussion on that matter, it was not an issue which could be discussed at this meeting and would require a separate application.  He considered that the current proposal was very different from a scaffolding yard, which only had a few traffic movements in the morning and evening, and was likely to generate ongoing traffic movements involving several vehicles on a daily basis.  He considered that the proposal was not right or suitable for Sustead.

The Chairman referred to the comments of Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer, which had been circulated prior to the meeting.  Members confirmed that they had read the comments.

Councillor N Pearce referred to the conclusion to the Officer’s report which stated that if this was a new proposal it would not be acceptable in this rural location.  He considered that this was a new proposal and he did not support it due to its location.  He considered that residential use would be better for the village and the applicant had offered a way forward.

Councillor P Heinrich considered that it was unfortunate that the previous application for residential use had not been brought before the Committee.  He stated that he wished to propose refusal of this application.

The Head of Planning cautioned the Committee against lengthy discussion of the principle of residential development as there was no application currently on the table and there was a danger of predetermination.  The applicant had an opportunity to engage with the community and undertake a pre-application process, and the Committee could consider any formal proposals which were subsequently put forward at the appropriate time.

There being no proposer for the Officers’ recommendation, the Chairman put the recommendation to the Committee and it was lost with no Members voting in favour.

It was proposed by Councillor P Heinrich, seconded by Councillor P Fisher and

RESOLVED unanimously

That the Committee indicates that it would have refused this application for the following reasons:

1.     In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the scale of the proposed development in terms of number of storage containers in the compound in combination with lighting and the nature of the use would result in noise and disturbance from general activity and comings and goings that would be harmful to the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby dwellings.  The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy Policies EN4 and EN13.

2.     In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal is for a new business in the area designated as Countryside.  It has not been demonstrated that the proposal requires rural location or there is a particular environmental or operational justification as to why it should be located in the Countryside.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies SS1 and SS2.