Agenda item

The Committee considered application P/FUL/2022/03143 for the change of use from agricultural to 8 no. self-storage (B8 storage only) units at Walston Poultry Farm Ltd, Gaunt’s Common, BH21 4JR.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; and what this change of use entailed. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed, but what effect it would have on residential amenity, the highway network and the character the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of how the storage units were to be developed and how they would make use of the existing building there as a basis for what was to be developed, how it would look like and its dimensions – those specifications to be finalised at a later stage in liaison with officers; access and highway considerations; environmental and land management considerations – taking account of the Grade II Listed Building – Little Thatch, the site was adjacent to ancient woodland and to Holt and West Moors Heaths SSSI and was within the Green Belt; drainage and water management considerations, the means of landscaping and screening and the development’s setting within that part of Gaunt’s Common.

 

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential

development, with the characteristics, topography and elevations of the site being shown. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary to assess the application. The site had previously been used as a poultry farm and what buildings were currently there and how they would be transformed and renovated to provide for the storage units was explained.

 

The previous planning history of the site was outlined explaining in what way a previous application refusal had now been addressed to make this application acceptable.

 

What assessment had been made in the officers coming to their recommendation were drawn to the attention of the Committee, with the proposal being considered to be acceptable in relation to previous issues now being addressed and that, although industrial estates were preferred locations for storage and distribution uses, there was satisfaction that the proposed re-use of existing buildings for 8 self-storage units could, in principle, be acceptable in this location provided that the requirements of policy PC4 ‘The Rural Economy’ were met.

 

Moreover, the Highway Authority considered there to be no adverse highway implications given that there were currently no restrictions on the agricultural use of the site; the removal of movements associated with the existing agricultural use would be a general highway benefit; individual storage units were typically accessed by cars and light vans so the use by HGVs was anticipated to reduce and that a condition to secure the manoeuvring, parking and loading areas be applied.

 

Officers judged that the benefits associated with the reuse of existing buildings for economic purposes, the reduction in ammonia and nitrogen emissions in close proximity to the SSSI, the removal of slow-moving farm traffic from the highways and the ability to control future use by the imposition of conditions weighed in favour of the application and that any permission could be satisfactorily controlled by condition so as to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and that, on balance, the application accorded with Local Plan and national planning policies when considered as a whole. Those assessments formed the basis of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

 

From formal consultation, Holt Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the enterprise was not appropriate for the rural parish and given the site constraints, there would inappropriate commercial activity due to HGV movements, increased traffic, noise and local disruption; there was a

lack of suitable infrastructure and highways to support the use and road safety concerns and would have an adverse effect on residential amenity. The adjoining Parish Council of Hinton were concerned about traffic management in Gaunt’s area.

 

The local Ward Member for Stour and Allen Vale, Cllr Robin Cook, considered that the proposal could have a considerable negative effect on the

village and asked that it be refused.

 

Adam Bennett, agent representing local residents, considered the application to be unacceptable given the highway considerations in such a constrained rural area considering it to be an unsustainable enterprise in such a rural location and one that did not meet local need. There were currently no clear details of how the development would look or its size, layout or what parking arrangements there were to be. Given all this he considered the application should be refused.

 

Brett Spiller, for applicant, considered that the low impact use of redundant buildings to be of economic benefit with traffic issues not being a concern and outstanding issues having been addressed. The previous unfettered use had not given cause for concern and what was being proposed would be better regulated. In providing for improved amenity, he asked for the application to be approved.

 

Simon McCorkle, local resident, expressed concern at the highway and access issues he considered would be generated by this proposal and contended that, on that basis, the application should be refused.

 

Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

 

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so

as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision.

 

Some important points raised, some of which they considered still required clarification, were:-

·        for what purposes would the units be used

·        how frequently they would be used

·        by whom would they be used – public or commercial

·        what could and could not be stored there – a need for an informative note to account for this.

·        how what was being stored there would be managed, monitored and regulated

·        how traffic would be managed and the access and parking arrangements

 

Officers addressed the questions raised – and provided what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which the Committee understood. As to what could and could not be stored there, including potentially hazardous substances, other agencies would regulate this, under licence and their own prescriptions.

 

From debate, the majority of the Committee considered the recommendation to not be acceptable on the grounds pertaining to the previous refusal - as set out in paragraph 15.1.1, 15.1.2 and 15.1.3 of the officers report : -

·        being in an unsustainable location,

·        insufficient information about the number and nature of future users or any way to reasonable way to control trip rates.

·        notwithstanding the opportunity to control the hours of operation, the proposal is anticipated to result in harm to neighbouring amenity from increased vehicular trip rates associated with multiple storage units along the narrow access.

 

However, some members considered the application to be acceptable as it would make best use of the existing buildings there and in light of no objection from the Highway’s Officer.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report

and presentation; the written representation; and what they had heard at the

meeting, in being proposed by Councillor David Tooke and seconded by

Councillor Mike Barron, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed - by 5:2 (with 1 abstention) - to refuse permission.

 

Resolved

That application P/FUL/2022/03143 be refused.

 

Reasons for Decision

That the proposal failed to overcome previous reasons for refusal at set out in paragraphs 15.1.1, 15.1.2 and 15.1.3 of the officer’s report.

1. The application site is an unsustainable location for a storage use of the scale proposed, which is inconsistent with the accessibility of the rural location contrary to policy KS2 Settlement Hierarchy and KS11 Transport and Development of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy.

2. Due to the scale of the proposal and without information about the nature of future users or any reasonable way to control trip rates, the proposal is likely to result in a significantly more intensive use than the existing single holding poultry farm use. The noise and vehicle movements generated will result in harm to the character and tranquillity of the countryside and this harm is judged to outweigh the benefits of the scheme, contrary to policies HE3 Landscape Quality and policy PC4 The Rural Economy of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy and paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. Notwithstanding the opportunity to control the hours of operation, the proposal is anticipated to result in harm to neighbouring amenity from vehicular trip rates associated with multiple storage units along the narrow access in close proximity to The Olde Oak and Little Thatch contrary to policy HE2 Design of New Development of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.