Agenda item

DM/17/01376/FPA - Land To The South East Of Southridge, Seaton

Change of use from agricultural use to light industrial to store equipment for arboricultural business (amended plans received confirming revised access).

Minutes:

The Team Leader - Central and East gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Team Leader - Central and East advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for change of use from agricultural use to the storage of equipment and materials in association with an arboricultural business (amended description and plans received confirming revised access) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East explained that Members had seen while on site the application included two parts, one part being an agricultural building, part of a complex of buildings that had once been a farmstead, with conversion to residential during the 1990s and 2000s.  He added that a number of small businesses had developed at the site, including liveries and a prestige car business.  It was explained the second part was a field that the applicant would use to store and process materials brought to site.

 

Members noted that the types of vehicles to be stored were not heavy goods vehicles, rather small trucks, Land Rovers, tractors, mobile wood chippers and a workforce welfare van.  It was noted that vehicles would be leaving site in the morning to attend jobs and return at the end of the work day to the site, with some employees of the business having work vehicles at home and would travel directly to jobs from their homes.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted the majority of the concerns from residents were in terms of the vehicle movements and the chipping of wood on-site.  Members noted plans showing the areas and it was added that as the building had been vacant for a while the application would help to bring a building back into use.  Members noted that the application also included cabins to the rear of the building for office and welfare facilities.  It was explained that the access would be along the road running between the agricultural building and the livery opposite.  It was noted that there was a dispute in terms of rights of access along this road, however, this fell outside of the remit in terms of determining the planning application.  It was noted that the application was adequate in terms of access and parking provision, the proposed access having accommodated the minibus used for the site visit by Members and also agricultural vehicles in the past.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East referred to a plan and photos in terms of the storage of materials and where chipping would take place, the furthest part of the field from other properties. 

It was noted there was a condition within the recommendation for approval that sought to restrict the height of any stored materials to 2 metres, and it was added the site levels meant that this area was below that of the nearby properties.

 

It was noted that representations had been received from residents as well as Seaton with Slingley and Dalton-le-Dale Parish Councils in terms of the access and highway safety and potential noise. 

 

Members noted that there had been no objections from the Highways Section and the Noise Team subject to conditions restricting the chipping, and including a limit of no chipping activities on more than 3 days within a calendar month, and that such chipping be carried out at a reasonable hour.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted the application was not technically in accordance with development in the countryside, however, the type of business was associated with the countryside and the issues would primarily be in terms of the vehicles coming and going from the site.  It was reiterated that vehicles would primarily be travelling out from the site to jobs, and returning later in the day and that this would have little impact on other road or bridleway users.

 

It was explained that the two cabins proposed to be placed at the rear of the agricultural building would be well screened and painted an appropriate colour as to blend in.  Members were reminded that the application would allow a business to retain employment for a number of employees and that the business needed to vacate its current premises.

 

The Team Leader - Central and East noted that the bringing back into use of the agricultural building, together with the securing of jobs was positive and that the impacts upon highway safety and noise could be dealt with by way of conditions.  He added that in terms of the NPPF Paragraph 14 balance test the benefits would outweigh the dis-benefits and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

 

The Chairman noted that Applicant, Mr J Wheeler was in attendance should there be a need for him to answer any questions and asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor O Temple noted whilst out on site that the position chosen for wood chipping was as far away from the main site and residential buildings as possible, however, asked that under paragraph 8 of the report where there was reference to processing, he asked what cutting by hand meant and whether this excluded the use of chainsaws.

 

Mr J Wheeler noted that by hand-sawing he understood this to mean by use of a chainsaw, and that chainsaws were around 90dB and the chipper around 95dB in terms of noise levels.  The Chairman noted restricted working times in terms of activities.  Councillor J Clark asked if the limit of processing to 3 days in one calendar month applied to the use of chainsaws in addition to chippers.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter noted that Condition 5 appeared to cover the use of chainsaws in the sense of processing of the materials.

Councillor J Robinson proposed that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor P Jopling. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.

 

Supporting documents: