Agenda item

Erection of managers dwelling and office/welfare building

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer for Erection of managers dwelling and office/welfare building at Shield Haulage, Sandy Carr, Wolsingham, Bishop Auckland, DL13 3AD (for copy see file of minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included site location plans, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

M Ferguson, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and advised that the lack of accommodation was hampering the investment on site.  She referred to guidance which she advised did not always reflect local services.  She confirmed that to approve the application, the Committee needed to conclude that it was essential for someone to live on site, which was something that would apply in relation to farm dwellings.

The Applicant, Mr Shield advised that he started the business in 2009 and gave background information to the growth of the business.  He advised that his son had completed an apprenticeship upon leaving school and joined the business with fresh ideas which had proven successful.

Mr Shield advised that his ambition was to have twenty wagons on the road working 24/7 and advised that suggestions in the report that fuel and batteries could be insured and with regards to employing a night-time fitters, was not cost effective and could not be considered.

The reason for having a live in site manager, was in order to be proactive to all situations and utilise all 43 staff on site.  The application provided local employment, business, truck consumables and provided somewhere for administration and meetings, it was a long term strategy to improve facilities and would provide essential security, health and safety and more efficient on site commitments.

The proposal would contribute significantly to expansion for long term plans and success and ensure job security whilst also boosting the local economy.  Mr Shield advised that the business had increased from £700k turnover in 2015 to an anticipated increase to £3m turnover next year, suggesting this was not the small business, as described in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the main issues had been set summarised in the report, the policy requiring a functional need for 24-hour live-in accommodation had not been satisfied.  In response to the need for attending to emergencies, an incident log had been provided for emergency call outs and there had only been 10 minor incidents that the Planning Authority felt could be covered by additional staff.  With regards to security, the police had no record of call outs or incidents and the Planning Authority believed that improvements to security could be made, such as CCTV installation.  The Principal Planning Officer advised it was expected that this would be in place prior to a residential application being made and was not deemed to be necessary for someone to be on site at all times.

The Chair advised that he appreciated the need as a business owner to be on site at all times.

J Atkinson agreed that the applicant should be on site and  considering the employment opportunities as well as the other positive benefits, was minded to approve the application.

Councillor Savory, Local Member, advised that every member wanted what was best for their ward and confirmed that there had been no objections local. The business had been established in 2009 and gone from strength to strength with 20 wagons and 43 local employees.  This was a remote area in Weardale where jobs were not in abundance and security was an issue.  Being on site when running a business of this size was preferable.  The site could not be seen from the road and she supported the application and moved that it be recommended for approval.

Councillor Brown described the application; it was a four-bedroom dwelling and welfare building within the North Pennines, an AONB, and this was unfortunately against policy.  She agreed with comments made about local employment however the applicant could live elsewhere and should consider living nearer than Barnard Castle.

Councillor Adam noted that there was not a strong enough objection, even from ecology and highways.  The proposal would benefit the area and the applicant had already indicated that this was a growing business, that needed a greater strength of security.  The report was unclear whether the area was fully serviced with gas, electricity and water, all of which he considered could restrict sustainability and he queried why there was a need for a large four bedroom property in this location?

Mr Shield, responded with regards to the size of house, he was planning for the future and considering the needs of his son who had recently became Director of the business and would one day start a family.  He continued that there was mains electric and water, but no gas mains.  He advised that the reason for moving the premises further away was that Weardale supplied the local quarries and in addition most of the staff were from Weardale and Consett and for them this was centrally located and they only travelled 5-6 miles to work.

Councillor Sterling asked some questions to understand the positive impact the application would have on the business moving forward and whether Mr Shield could provide any figures.  Mr Shield advised that more on-site training could be offered and the business would be equipped for more contracts which they were being offered.  His son was very proactive and with his academic success brought a positive approach that would take business into the next phase.  Mr Sheild had not envisaged being in this position when he had relcoated the business, but it was essential to start the next phase and move forward.

Councillor Sterling asked what the application would do in terms of staffing and Mr Shield advised that he had an Operator Licence for 20 vehicles but had only 10 on the road.  He intended to get all 20 vehicles on the road and would need to increase staff for that and increase office staff.

In response to a further question from Councillor Sterling regarding the projected turnover and Mr Shield advised that it was expected to increase as he was able to fluctuate the fleet on both quarries and ports.  He predicted staffing would increase by 20-25 but it could be more.

Councillor Stead reminded the Committee that some of the details that were being discussed were not material planning considerations, although they could consider employment.  The site looked like an industrial unit and sometimes when expanding a business a bigger area was required but he did not consider this was the best location and suggested perhaps the applicant should look for an alternative site.  He had visited the site, which was very remote, surrounded by trees and would not be visible from the road, however in terms of scaling business, he did not think a four bedroom house was appropriate.  This was was an application for a residential property, he had not demonstrated that this was required for an overnight place to stay on shift and although he had not determined the application, he was minded to support the recommendation and refuse the application.

Councillor Adam asked whether County Durham had any precedent in County Durham in relation to rural properties and if there was any formal guidance on this type of development.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that in terms of rural workers, a high amount of applications were received and refused, decisions substantiated at appeal, but they all had specific site circumstances.

Councillor Cairns was concerned that the Applicant was upgrading from a static caravan to a four bedroom house and associated buildings.  She would have been more inclined if they been moving to facilities for business and did not see the synergy between the house and welfare and office facilities, they were completely different things.

Councillor Sterling was also struggling with the size and pace of the expansion and there was no explanation of alternatives being explored.  A building project was a large commitment and building work done in stages to ensure financial viability, but there were a lot of steps missed out.

C Cuskin, Planning and Development Solicitor advised that the main issue to consider was whether the Applicant had demonstrated the need for a full time role on the site.

Councillor Atkinson advised that he considered applications on their own merits and this Applicant was presenting a business case on why it was easier for him regarding travel and security.  The only issue he could see was regarding sustainability of the house and whether anyone would want to live there in future but he had explained that this was somewhere that he could live and his family after.  He seconded the motion to approve the application.

The Planning and Development Solicitor asked for reasons for approval and suggested that as no conditions were agreed, that they were delegated to the Planning Officer, in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee.

Resolved

That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions to be delegated by Officers in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee.