Change of use of land to car storage and associated landscaping.

Ward: Hollington

Change of use of land to car storage and associated landscaping.

The following updates were reported:

·          In response to further information, the Parish Council had commented that they ‘continue to strongly object to the whole principle of landscaping this greenfield site and to the change of use of land.  This application has in the past been refused planning in 2003 and 2004.  It is the view of the Parish Council that this application be refused on the grounds laid out in letters sent in relation to the applications received in 2005 and 2007.  The unanimous decision of the Parish Council is that this application be refused.’

·          An updated ecological survey had been provided which concluded that the site supported ‘little intrinsic nature conservation value’ and ‘no ecological constraints have been found’.

·          The Sub-Committee was advised that, due to late receipt of the survey, no comments had been received from the Council’s Ecologist.  However, based upon the conclusions, it was not envisaged that the ecological issues would warrant refusal of the development.  In response to the comments from the Parish Council, it was reported that the material changes since the consideration of the previous applications was the extent of landscaping now proposed and the ability to handle car transporter deliveries within the site.  In the light of this, the visual and landscape impact of the development was now considered acceptable and there was an improvement to the current highway problems.

·          A letter of objection from two local residents.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Layton of Grafton and Haywood Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. 

Councillor MAF Hubbard said that, in respect of this application, he also represented the views of Councillor GFM Dawe, who had given his apologies for the meeting.  He said that the application was in open countryside and, as such, did not comply with Unitary Development Plan Policy.  He also said that there was insufficient evidence that the application would ensure further employment in the area. 

The Principal Planning Officer drew members’ attention to Paragraph 6.1 of the report, which addressed the issues relating to open countryside.  He said that employment policies allowed some development of the site and Policy E6 allowed expansion of the existing business.  A former appeal case on the site had not questioned the principle of expansion but rather the visual impact relating to the expansion.  Issues relating to drainage and vehicle movements would be addressed though conditions.  In response to a question, he gave details of the proposed surfacing materials. 

Councillor DW Greenow expressed concern about the impact of highway safety at the Grafton Lane access and the lack of special provision for the run-off of vehicle-related chemicals, such as oil, into watercourses. 

Councillor AJM Blackshaw felt that the application would adversely affect the environment and amenity of local residents and was unacceptable. 

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes expressed support for the application because it addressed many previous problems on the site, the landscaping scheme was acceptable, and she felt there was evidence that it would provide additional employment. 

A motion to refuse the application was carried, and the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED: That

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      The proposed development involves the change of use of agricultural land in open countryside to a commercial use which particularly by virtue of its adverse impact upon the environment, the quality and character of the landscape and visual amenities of the locality is contrary to Policies S1, S2, S7, DR1, DR4, E6, E8 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 7.

(ii)         If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above. 

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services, given the reasons put forward by the Sub-Committee]