Agenda item

Proposal: Alterations to 2 No. agricultural buildings with change of use to the buildings and land to D1 non-residential institution use.

The Specialist (Development Control) presented the application as detailed in the agenda. He clarified there was a building at the location which already had extant permission for office space but was not included within the red line for the current application being considered.

He explained there was little change proposed to the elevations of the existing buildings in visual terms. The nature of the business was land hungry and not suited to an industrial estate. Due to the nature of the proposal the Highway Authority did not require a traffic plan and had not raised any objections. He highlighted the key considerations and acknowledged that noise of reversing bleepers was a concern, but could be addressed by a condition to requiring headphone alerts to help reduce noise.

Six members of the public spoke in objection to the application and some of their points included:

·         Reference to impact on local economy and site isn’t well related to the village of Fivehead.

·         No benefit to the community and don’t feel it qualifies as farm diversification as the site is not currently actively farmed.

·         Economic Development Strategy doesn’t support construction industry in the countryside

·         Applicant is proposing moving business from a larger site with good access to this smaller site with poor access.

·         Required visibility splays will open up the site and the hedges are in third party ownership.

·         Lanes through the village have blind driveways and poor junctions with the main road.

·         Cumulative impact of traffic movements has not been adequately considered.

·         An application for a school a short distance up the lane had recently been refused by the Committee in November due to highway safety concerns – why was there a reversal of that opinion for this application?

·         To fit in the community needs to enhance what’s already there.

·         No further ecological surveys have been done even though the site is close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There is much wildlife in the reporting zone.

·         No heritage building assessment has been done and there are historic buildings nearby.

·         There is no noise impact assessment, and reference to the NPPF regarding new noise from development.

·         Construction machinery is not the same agricultural machinery.

·         No consultation has taken place regarding impact on the nearby bridleway.

·         Feel basic requirements have not been met in order for a legal decision to be made on the application.

Two members of the public and the applicant then addressed members in support of the application, and some of their points included:

·         Many people travel into Fivehead each day quite safely

·         When the site was actively farmed it was very busy with farm traffic.

·         Employment is important. It is essential young people learn a trade and skills.

·         This is a professional training business and will have less traffic movements than a working farm

·         Difficult for such a small property to be run as a working farm.

·         It is a small business offering training in the use of plant machinery, not only for construction but also environment machinery.. Technology is used to meet legislation.

·         Reversing alarms will only be heard in a designated danger zone. Hedges and a noise bund will be maintained.

·         Feel concerns about impact on the nearby bridleway are unreasonable as there is a field in between the bridleway and the site.

Ward member, Councillor Malcolm Cavill, commented that the chances of the farm being used for active agriculture were now remote due to size now only being around 10 acres.  He also noted the applicant had been in open dialogue with the parish, and had hosted an open visit event for members of the parish council and local community to the farm and the applicant’s existing business site. The proposal would have more restricted hours than a working farm, and concerns about noise of reversing sensors would be addressed by technology via the use of headphones. He noted the applicant had logged daily traffic movements for the business, and the average was 15 movements each day. He felt there would be little impact on the village of Fivehead.

During debate mixed opinions were expressed. There were several concerns raised regarding the apparent lack of assessments regarding traffic impact, noise impact and heritage / archaeology. Some members felt they did not have all the information required in order to make decision. Some of the comments raised during discussion included:

·         If a noise assessment was available would be able to make a more informed decision.

·         Every application judged on own merits but there also needs to be consistency.

·         When the site was actively farmed there would have been many traffic movements.

·         Highways raised no objections

·         Believe much of the training proposed will in a classroom environment.

·         Environmental Health comments should be noted.

In response to comments made, the Specialist (Development Control) and Specialist (Development Management) clarified that:

·         Officer comments about heritage were detailed on page 25 of the agenda.

·         Environmental Health had recommended conditions including a requirement for further noise information – if noise measurements or any noise reduction schemes were not satisfactory then the proposal would not go ahead.

·         There was no policy requirement for a transport plan.

At the end of discussion, it was formally proposed to defer the application in order to receive further information and assessments regarding a travel plan, ecology and environmental / noise, in order to fully inform a decision. On being put to the vote the proposal to defer was carried 6 in favour, 5 against with no abstentions.

(Voting: 6 in favour, 5 against , 0 abstentions)