Agenda item

Change of use of agricultural buildings at Battle Farm to use Class B8 (storage or distribution).

An update from the Case Officer was provided as follows:

Cllr Wharf submitted a statement regarding the application after the officer report had been published and agreed for his statement to be relayed to members of the committee.

Cllr Wharf worked with the parish council in respect of this application and had expressed concerns that insufficient information had been received to enable proper consideration of the proposal. He supported the Parish Council’s position on the application and requested the submission of revised baseline traffic figures that are independently verifiable prior to determination of the application.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site in relation to settlement boundaries and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the existing agricultural buildings were included in the officer presentation together with details of their scale and floorspace. Details regarding parking provision, job opportunities and the proposed parking bay and site access signage were provided. Members viewed short videos outlining routes to and from the site and informal passing places. The Case Officer outlined the history of the site as a poultry farm, noting the lawful agricultural use could include heavy goods vehicle movements.

The Case Officer informed members that concerns had been raised by the parish council and residents, particularly regarding the impacts on the area arising from an anticipated increase in traffic movement. However, members were informed that on balance no significant adverse impact has been identified and the benefits outweighed the potential harm. The Officer’s recommendation was to approve, subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Public Participation

Residents, the Parish Council and Local Ward Member spoke in objection to the planning application. They raised their concerns regarding an anticipated increase in traffic movement, especially by HGV’s, which they consider would be unsuitable travelling on narrow country roads and they believed would be detrimental to residents’ way of life. They informed members that the road leading to the site access was used by a range of pedestrians and horse riders. If members were to approve the proposal, safety for local road users and residents would be impacted. Objectors also raised their concerns regarding the impacts on biodiversity and protected wildlife species. Residents were concerned about the lack of specific details as what would be stored or distributed at the site. They did not believe that the location was sustainable for the scale of the development. They found it difficult to see any benefits and believed the proposed application was flawed due to reliance on unrealistic agricultural traffic movement data and additional traffic on highways including Yearlings Drove which is signed as being unsuitable for HGVs. Members were informed of the number of objectors due to the scale and increase in traffic movement. All objectors felt the site would result in harm and did not believe the benefits outweighed the harm.

The Parish Council explained their concern that tourist spending would be impacted as a result of harm to the environment and did not believe that economic benefits would result nor that environmental and public harm had been properly considered. The Local Ward member felt that the site did not meet the requirements of the area and considered that more engagement was necessary with the Parish Council. He recommended deferral to allow for more collaboration or refusal as they do not believe the proposed development was acceptable.

Mr Tregay and Mr Culhane spoke in favour of the proposed application. They believed that the site would have several benefits, including the creation of both part time and full-time jobs. They reiterated to members that the current building was no longer fit for purpose and the proposal would attract new businesses and would promote development. Mr Culhane explained that the transport statement was informed both by data from the previous operator and nationally accepted TRICs data which identified limited traffic movements would arise. He noted that no objections were raised by highways authority. They believed that there were no impacts on wildlife and hoped members would support the officer recommendation.

The Agent discussed how the development would create job opportunities. Mr Whittaker informed members that the visual impacts were small and believed that the site access was safe and suitable. The Agent assured members that a lot of time and planning had gone into the proposal and all areas had been considered. He hoped members would have confidence in the officer’s recommendation and support.

Steve Savage, Dorset Council’s Transport Development Manager, confirmed to members that no objections had been raised by the Highways team. Mr Savage accepted that issues had been raised regarding traffic movement, however, he reminded members that the site had a baseline unfettered agricultural use. He assured members that the appropriate measurements had been carried out and the predictions indicated that the traffic would not result in highway capacity or safety issues. The Transport Development Manager highlighted to members that the road network was typical of Dorset roads. He informed members that there were no highways safety reasons to refuse.

Members questions and comments

·       Members felt that they needed more information on environmental impacts.

·       Questions regarding when the previous site stopped operating.

·       Point of clarification as to what would be stored on site.

·       Comments regarding large number of parking spaces on site at one time.

·       Queries about the storage of hazardous materials on site

·       Members commented on the road being constructed for horses and carts and now being widely used by pedestrians. 

·       Comments about the limited width of the roads and informal passing places not being useable during winter months which could increase accidents. Would also result in verges and hedging being damaged due to passing cars.

·       Concerns regarding detrimental effects on the environment and area.

·       Alter the local quality of life for the worse.

·       Clarification on collision data on the local road infrastructure.

·       Site is in an isolated and unsustainable location.

Cllr Trite agreed with the Local Ward member to defer for more engagement with the Parish Council. A motion to defer the application was proposed by Bill Trite and seconded by Alex Brenton. On reconsideration, Cllr Alex Brenton withdrew her vote to second and the proposal fell.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation to approve planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Alex Brenton, and seconded by Cllr Robin Cook.

Decision: To overturn the officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission due to the site being in an isolated, inaccessible, and unsustainable location which is not appropriate for a storage and distribution use which is associated with potentially significant trip rates. The traffic movements generated along single track country roads through Briantspuddle and Throop will result in an adverse impact on the environment and the amenity of residents which is judged to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.  The proposal is contrary to policies CO, D, E and IAT of the Purbeck Local Plan and NPPF para 83 and 105.