Agenda item

Use of land and existing building for a mixed use of agriculture, plant hire and contracting business, including erection of new storage building and use of existing building for storage/workshop (part retrospective)

Use of land and existing building for a mixed use of agriculture, plant hire and contracting business, including erection of new storage building and use of existing building for storage/workshop (part retrospective)

Consideration was given to the report submitted in relation to the above application, a copy of which had been circulated.

A Inch, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. A plan showing the distribution of the Applicant’s business contracts across North East England was also shown to the Committee.

Mr Norman addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He lived at Royal Oak and had been to many meetings over the years in relation to applications on this site.  He explained that the site was greenbelt and residents were plagued with noise, with the site working 14 hours a day. 

There had been many refusals for applications on the site, and now the Applicant wanted another large building, which would leave no room for vehicles to manoeuvre within the site.  The Applicant had a number of snow clearing contracts with Durham County Council, who also had a depot a mile away and there was no reason why the Applicant’s vehicles could not be kept there. 

Mr Ryman then addressed the Committee, also in objection to the application.  He felt that the planning history of the site was disgraceful, with a string of applications, refusals, appeals and enforcement, yet the business had carried on operating for over 10 years.  There was a danger from slow moving JCBs accessing the A68, which was now the main route for ambulances travelling to Darlington Memorial Hospital and quite simply this was the wrong development in the wrong location and should not be allowed to continue any longer.

Mr Lavender, the Applicant’s Agent, spoke in support of the application.  He acknowledged that the site had a complex planning history, and the current application had been lodged in May 2010.  The main issues in relation to the application were the affect on the appearance of the area and whether the use was sustainable.

The property had been designed to look like a traditional farm building, and the new building would allow obtrusive equipment to be stored under cover.  There would be no detrimental impact on the area therefore as a result of the development.

Although staff did not visit the Royal Oak premises on a daily basis, it was centrally located in relation to the homes of the Applicant’s employees. It made a contribution to the local economy and detailed analysis of the business showed it to be sustainable. He requested the Committee approve the application, but asked that condition no. 1 in the recommendation be amended to refer to Mr Butterfield or his dependents.

In responding to issues raise by speakers, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that although there was a long planning history to the site, this application had taken into account previous reasons for refusal and looked to address them. The application was not for an intensification of use of the site, and although previous applications had been refused on highways grounds, on appeal an Inspector had found there to be no highway safety issue.  The site was greenfield rather than green belt and the application turned on how the business operated and this was a personal permission for the Applicant and his family.

The Highways Officer (A Glenwright) confirmed that there was no objection on highway safety grounds, there having been only one accident nearby since 2002.  There was however an objection due to the lack of public transport to the site, with only one bus service in early morning and one in the evening.  The site was therefore not sustainable in transport terms.

In considering the application, Members referred to the suggested condition no. 1 which restricted use of the site to the Applicant and his family and dependents.  It was commented that the business was a limited company and Members questioned whether the condition reflected this. Some felt that this aspect required further investigation, and it was suggested that approval of the application be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair if the Committee was minded to approve.

Other Members however felt that the application should be refused.  There was a long planning history on the site, a lack of clarity in relation to the individual permission issue, and the site was unsustainable in highways terms.

It was noted however that the business supported 23 jobs in Teesdale, Evenwood and Barony Parish Council supported the proposal and the business had been sustainable for 25 years.  Some Members therefore felt that the application should be approved.

In relation to condition 1, Members were advised that the application could be granted with it as written, or that the application could be delegated to Officers for determination once the matter had been resolved.  Councillor Shuttleworth felt that wording the condition to allow use by the Applicant and his family, but not dependants, would resolve the matter appropriately.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out in the report, except that condition no. 1 be amended to read:

‘The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr John Butterfield or his family and who are employed…’