Agenda item

The planning application was a part-retrospective application for the change of use of an agricultural paddock at Fen Cottage, Werrington Bridge Road, Milking Nook to parking and storage of vehicles in association with the existing plant hire business.

The key issues to be considered were:

·         Principle of development;

·         Impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area / landscape character;

·         Highway implications;

·         Neighbour amenity;

·         Drainage and flood risk.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following points:

·         The site was in the open countryside with residential dwellings nearby.

·         Part of the hard core flooring had already been laid, which was why the application was part-retrospective.

·         Nine objections had been received from local residents.

·         The NPPF supported economic growth in connection with an established economic use. A condition had been proposed to ensure that any permission granted was personal to the applicant.

·         There would be no significant increase in traffic, however the front of the building would become less cluttered.

·         A condition had been proposed to restate the hours of operation already in place on the business site.

·         The proposal was in flood zone 3. Following the sequential test, as there was an established business at the site, an alternative location would not be practical.

·         The update report included additional conditions regarding landscaping and it was clarified that sub-letting would not be allowed, as the permission was personal.

·         Any non-compliance of conditions should be reported to the compliance team.

Councillor Harrington, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Development should not be permitted in the open countryside.

·         The applicant could utilise an industrial site elsewhere.

·         No further jobs would be created from the proposals.

·         There was a high amount of traffic movement on Werrington Bridge Road and this was often at high speed.

·         The proposal would result in overdevelopment.

·         The applicants would not be able to mitigate the impact of the proposal.

Mr Paul Fowler, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal represented a threat of industrialisation to a small hamlet.

·         The NPPF stated that development in the countryside should be restricted unless through the conversion of existing buildings or well-designed new buildings. The application was neither of these, nor is it essential to the effective operation of local agriculture as set out in the Councils’ 2012 DPD.

·         There are local business which could store the machinery for the applicant with expansion.

·         If the application were approved, a condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate their vehicles were essential to the effective operation of local agriculture was requested.

·         The risk of flooding was significant and more work needed to be undertaken to ensure that conditions regarding flooding were effective.

·         Liaison with the Environment Agency was requested as well as a SUDS test and flood mitigation, all by condition.

·         It was highlighted that the application would have an impact on residences visual amenity.

·         A condition to exclude the permanent storage of HGV’s on site was requested.

Ms Alex Terry addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         There were significant undiscovered remains on the site, which should be considered.

·         This expansion was a step too far in the development of the site.

·         There was concern that the business would turn into a haulage company and that commercial activity was inappropriate as there were no footpaths on the surrounding roads.

·         Attention was drawn to the fact that conditions relating to previous working hours had been flouted, as work was carried out on Sundays.

·         Residents were in a difficult situation as the only way to reinstate previous conditions on the existing site was to grant this application.

·         Conditions needed to be specific with regard to protecting heritage, protecting nature, child safety, environmental consultation, business use for local agriculture and consultation with the highways department regarding HGV licences.

The Committee discussed proposed condition two and whether this included the prevention of HGV’s. The Planning and Development Manager advised that the condition clearly restricted the number and type of vehicle to be held on site, and this excluded HGV’s. It was clarified that condition two related to storage on site only and did not restrict the method of delivery. However, traffic generation was not expected to significantly increase.

The Committee noted that the enforcement and the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of any permission were of paramount importance.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation.

RESOLVED: (4 voted in favour, 1 voted against and 1 abstained from voting) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the amended conditions.

Reasons for the decision

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

·         the development would allow for the continued effective operation of a business within the rural area but is only acceptable for the duration of the associated plant hire business which itself has a limited personal permission, in accordance with paragraph 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012);

·         the existing paddock had historically been segregated from the wider open countryside and the development represents a natural extension to the existing business use.  The parking of vehicles would result in some detriment to the overall visual amenity of the locality however this is not considered to represent unacceptable harm, in accordance with Policies CS16 and CS20 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         the development would not materially increase the traffic generation from the site and would not result in unacceptable impact to the safety of the nearby public highway, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP12 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         the development would not result in any unacceptable impact to the amenities of neighbouring occupants, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); and

·         the development had met the requirements of the flood risk sequential test, would increase surface water storage within the site and would not result in any increased surface water flood risk to neighbouring sites, in accordance with paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011).