Agenda item

Change of use of the land and siting of 34 storage containers and associated works including installation of electric gate and security fencing, reconfiguration of car park layout and modification of existing cycle store.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application for the change of use of land for the siting of 34 storage containers and associated works. The site location and plan were shown, identifying the site within the Granby industrial estate. 

Members were informed that the land was owned by Dorset Council, lay within the Defined Development Boundary, and formed part of the safeguarded key employment site at the Granby. The site had originally gained permission for use as a car park in 1986. Photographs were shown to illustrate the existing character of the site and the surrounding industrial estate. Various views from around the site were presented, including nearby buildings. It was explained that some negotiation had taken place during the application process and the changes were identified on the site plan. 

Plans of the proposed storage containers were shown, along with existing and proposed cycle store plans. The existing and proposed street scenes were also presented, demonstrating that the containers and fencing would be screened by planting.

In considering the planning issues, it was stated that the principle of development was acceptable because the site lay within both the DDB and a designated Key Employment Site, where B8 storage and distribution uses were supported. The scale, design and impact on local character were assessed, and it was noted that the containers would not be visually intrusive and were appropriate to the setting. The type of fencing proposed, including palisade or similar styles, would be acceptable if set back and screened.

In terms of neighbouring amenity, the nearest residential property was approximately 240 metres away. It was therefore unlikely that workers or residents would experience disturbance and Environmental Protection had raised no concerns. Flood risk and drainage matters were addressed, with surface water flood risk identified on the constraints map; however, it was explained that the proposed use was classified as less vulnerable in flood risk terms, and the development would not materially alter drainage.

In terms of Highways impacts, policy required that development should not be permitted if it would have a severe detrimental impact on road safety or if such impacts could not be reasonably mitigated. Concerns remained regarding visibility splays and access for emergency vehicles. Photographs showed cars parked along Surrey Close to the extent that two vehicles would struggle to pass, and it was suggested that two HGVs meeting on the road would present difficulties. The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that the applicant had provided no information on business hours, no details about a booking system, and insufficient clarity in the submitted swept path analysis, including what vehicle type had been used for the assessment. The planning agent had indicated that HGV movements would be minimal but did not rule them out and suggested that HGVs could turn in the nearby industrial park car park; however, the land wasn’t included within the boundaries of the application site. There would also be a loss of parking from the proposed development and an objection had been received from a neighbouring business regarding this loss. Officers concluded that the impact on highway safety was unacceptable and contrary to policy.

In relation to ecology, the Senior Planning Officer referred to Policy ENV2, which required any harm to nature conservation interests to be mitigated or compensated and to Neighbourhood Plan Policy CNP12, which required a biodiversity plan. The applicant had stated that the scheme would cause no ecological harm, but officers advised that photographs showed existing scrub that would need to be cleared, and fencing might not be able to be installed without damaging vegetation. Biodiversity net gain would be required where more than 25 square metres of habitat was lost; officers believed this applied, although the applicant disagreed and had provided no evidence to support their position. Members were advised that biodiversity net gain was a post‑permission matter and could not form a reason for refusal. The site also lay within 5 km of the Chesil and the Fleet Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

In presenting the planning balance, it was explained that the proposal was contrary to the adopted development plan. Although the change of use would provide an economic benefit, the uncertainty regarding the impact on nearby businesses arising from the loss of parking and the failure to demonstrate safe highway conditions carried significant weight against any identified benefits.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Annen addressed the committee. He acknowledged that the principle of development was acceptable and stated that the proposal was also acceptable in terms of scale, design and neighbouring amenity. He noted that the applicant held a long lease from the Council and owned land and a building to the north, which he argued could be used by HGVs for turning. He stated that HGV deliveries were unlikely as the containers were small and would typically be used by individuals arriving in cars or vans for household or small‑business storage. He also suggested that the applicant could carry out routine maintenance to manage overgrown vegetation on the site, without the need for a biodiversity plan.

The following responses were provided by officers in response to members questions:

·       A detailed swept path analysis had not been provided by the applicant.

·       If there was a change in use of the land to B8, then other types of storage businesses could be operated on site in the future.

·       The applicant stated that they owned the land to the north of the site, however this was not included in the application site.

·       Permission was granted for the site in 1986 for offices and ancillary parking.

Having had the chance to debate the merits of the application, one member had expressed support for the scheme and noted the benefits of rejuvenating the area and also viewed any potential highways issues as minimal. However, other members expressed concerns about the lack of information for the swept path analysis and loss of parking.

It was proposed by Cllr Northam and seconded by Cllr Christopher that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to submit the relevant information in regards to highways and ecology concerns.

The Development Management Area Manager advised members that the Council could be at risk of non-determination if a decision wasn’t made and that there could be costs to the Council involved with that.

The proposal was withdrawn by Cllr Northam in light of the advice given by officers.

It was proposed by Cllr Eysenck and seconded by Cllr Kimber, that the application refused.

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.