Agenda item

Proposal: Change of use of land to provide a commercial vehicle storage facility with revised access (Retrospective)

The Planning Officer (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, and with the help of a PowerPoint presentation proceeded to show the site and proposed plans. He clarified that in the agenda report under site description and proposal, the text should have read “The height of the majority of vehicle stored at the site do not exceed three metres”.

He highlighted the following to members;

·         The proposed new access site

·         The landscaping scheme along the proposed access road

·         The recorded accident levels from 2000 – 2020

·         Key considerations were Highways, Ecology, Public Right of Way, Environmental Health and Heritage Assets

·         Additional conditions restricting the number of vehicles on site and no static caravans to be sited could be added if members were minded to approve the application.

·         The recommendation was to approve the application

A number of members of the public spoke in objection to the application, and some of the following comments were made;

·         The question had been raised as to why this unauthorised development had not challenged when it had started to expand.

·         Tress had been cut back beyond the boundary and ground levels had been raised around some trees which was considered bad for the trees.

·         The application suggested the area is flat and screening will be effective but to the South West and North the ground rises and the site will be in clear view of other properties.

·         There is visible glare from the site in the summer months that can be seen from North Cheriton and Wincanton.

·         Vehicle alarms were uncontrolled and lasted for days at a time.

·         Highway approval was based on data that was collated during a 12 week traffic controlled water main replacement along the road. This measured data was not recorded during normal conditions and was a procedural error.

·         The proximity of the distance between the listed building and the site had been ignored. There had already been a fire in the storage container on site that was attended by the fire brigade and presented a huge risk to the thatched cottage.

·         The concerns that had been raised in objections to this were from local residents who were immediately affected.

·         The site was not an acceptable site for storing caravans, where it was in the vicinity of listed buildings.

·         The possibility of large commercial vehicle being stored was concerning.

·         The entrance and caravans are highly visible from Lattiford.

·         The site was not suitable for this business of size or nature. There were many more acceptable trading estate sites nearby.

·         There were also local caravan and trailer storage sites already available. These sites existed on rural farms with no immediate neighbours or on trading estates.

·         These existing sites were also secure with high fencing, lockable gates, security cameras and security alarms, all of which would be highly intrusive on any local area.

The Agent addressed members in support of the application and some of her comments included;

·         The business at The Willows had grown organically.

·         Caravanning had become increasingly popular and was likely to endure and facilities such as this were in high demand.

·         The new access would be an improvement and would offer safer entry or exit.

·         The topography around the site gave good enclosure and further planting was proposed to improve the screening.

·         The development does not create noise or light pollution.

·         The land use accorded with the NPPF and the local plan, in particular policies SD1 SS1 TA5 EQ1, 2, 3 and 4.

Ward Member Councillor William Wallace highlighted that this sight could be seen extensively when travelling from Wincanton in southerly direction and that the North Vale Parish Council had made complaints about the increasing size of the site.

Ward Member Councillor Hayward Burt confirmed the speed indicator that had been installed along the road to measure the speed of vehicles would not have been recording normal traffic speed at the time because of the road works that were ongoing immediately after the site and that data collated in the highways report was irrelevant. Travelling South, the speed changes from the national speed limit to a 30 and in normal conditions cars would be slowing down, travelling a lot faster than 30.  He also noted that neither the report nor the highways report addressed how the caravans could move in and out of the access at the same time.

This was originally an enforcement issue that had been raised by the Parish Council. He felt that this application did not adhere with policy TA5 and was unsafe and did not support the application

During discussion most of the views were in objection to the application, some of which included;

·         Neighbours views and concerns had to be taken into account on deciding whether to approve

·         Was very concerned about this application from an environmental perspective

·         Felt that this was making good alternative use of the farm land.

·         Didn’t agree that this was a farm diversification scheme.

·         Concerned about the lack of a Chemical waste disposal on the site and felt this need was fundamental to the application.

·         There were no mention of EV chargers in the application

·         Agreed the road speed was abused and there were often speed cameras in the area because of the known issue of speeding.

·         The environment impact and the harm related was a key impact.

·         Evidence from the ward member had been heard that there were mitigating circumstances why the highways was a real issue at the location.

In response to questions from members the Planning Officer gave the following responses;

·         Part of the land qualified as previously developed land and the rest was agricultural land.

·         EV chargers could be conditioned

·         The application needed to be considered based on what had been presented in the application in reference to the addition of a need for chemical waste disposal.

·         Where an enforcement notice was served, it would ordinarily ask that the land is returned to its original form.

There was no further discussion and it was proposed and seconded to recommend that Area East refuse the application based on the following reasons;

·         Policy EQ7  Pollution Control – there was no reference in the application to this.

·         Policy TA5 - Road safety, items 2 and items 3

·         Policy EQ2 – The impact of Visual Amenity

On being put to the vote application 21/00485/FUL was refused, with 10 votes in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED

                        That Area East Committee recommend the Chief Executive to:

Refuse Application 21/00485/FUL for the following reasons

01.   The introduction of a large commercial vehicle storage facility, mainly comprising a group of light and reflective caravans, into this area of open countryside would neither preserve nor enhance the appearance and character of the area, and thus would fail to meet the requirements of Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

02.   Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the management of any effluent and other waste resulting from the operations carried out on the site. Based on the lack of information submitted, the Local Planning Authority is unable to determine whether the development will contribute to unacceptable levels of waste being generated and means and methods of disposal of such waste. Therefore it is considered appropriate to issue a holding reason for refusal on the grounds that the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development accords with the requirements of Policy EQ7 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

03.   Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the extent of access / egress movements to and from the site and the wider resultant highway safety implications of the development. Based on the lack of information submitted, the Local Planning Authority is unable to determine whether the development will cause unacceptable detriment to public safety and convenience along the local highway network. Therefore it is considered appropriate to issue a holding reason for refusal on the grounds that the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development accords with the requirements of Policies TA5 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

(Voting: 10 in Favour, 1 against)