Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the construction of a steel portal framed agricultural building at land to the northwest of 2 Greenside, Horsleyhope, Consett, DH8 9DA (for copy see file of minutes).

Leigh Dalby, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site map, ariel site photographs demonstrating the location of the commercial yard and permissible footpath, views of the site from Healeyfield Lane, the existing agricultural building and view of site from number one  Greensides Gardens.

Ms Latimer addressed the Committee on behalf of her father, a local resident. She outlined her views on the impact the application would have on the character of the area, wellbeing of residents, local wildlife and the environment. Ms Latimer indicated that, in her view the history of the Applicant’s property was not that of a working farm the current agricultural buildings being used to store heavy machinery relating to the pallet business. As her father resided in a property directly adjoining the proposed site the construction of a new agricultural building would impact on the view from neighbouring properties and a log cabin which had been built as a holiday let. The planting of hedgerows and trees would reduce the visual impact, but due to the size and positioning of the building it would not be fully shielded. Retrospective planning had been granted for an existing building used as part of the pallet business and it included a condition for trees to be planted to shield the building, however they had been planted along the roadside and Ms Latimer did consider that they align with the area’s natural aesthetics. The area was within the North Pennines Natural Landscape, which was celebrated for outstanding natural beauty and the existing pallet business had, in Ms Latimer’s view detracted from this and introduced an industrial aesthetic. The addition of a further industrial building would, in Ms Latimer’s opinion, only further detract from the beauty of the natural area and undermine wildlife habitats for bats, frogs, newts, and toads. The BNG area which had been suggested as a suitable wildflower meadow was considered unsuitable as this area housed a septic tank.. There were concerns that granting the application would impact on the short-term holiday let of the log cabin through increased noise, traffic, and obstructed views.

Mr Barrass, Agent addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant who had listened to the concerns raised by the Landscape Officer following the first application and reduced the size of the building significantly and added stone cladding, despite the area being screened by proposed tree planting. The landscape Officer had not visited site and instead based decisions on satellite images from 2011, concluding that the Applicant did not have any machinery or an active agricultural business. The relevant planning history which had not been disclosed in the committee report referred to a building approved for agricultural storage in approximately 1999 which confirmed that an agricultural business had been established for over 25 years. The Applicant had taken steps to mitigate the landscape impact as detailed in the report.The site of the building would be adjacent to the existing hard standing livestock feeding site and integrated building in the existing building cluster. Proposed tree planting would complement the area providing additional screeding to the pallet yard and create a woodland shelter appearance.

Mr Barrass advised that the Landscape Officer had suggested an alternative location at the highest point on the applicant’s property. This location was unsuitable as it was in a prominent position above existing rooflines and immediately in front of an existing property. The Applicant had chosen the proposed site to ensure that all agricultural activity was kept separate from the pallet yard and adjoined the largest proportion of the applicant’s agricultural land. The proposed smaller building would be positioned away from the boundary of the existing property and neighbouring land and would not impact on views or result in increased noise from agricultural traffic.  The building would reduce the need to travel to neighbour farms to collect fodder. The neighbouring property used former waggon containers for storage and stores property on common land which was not noted in the application.

Mr Barrass confirmed that the Applicant required the proposed purpose-built building for the storage of agricultural equipment and the shelter of livestock during adverse weather conditions, and not to further accommodate the pallet business. He asked Members to note that there had been no further objections from neighbours at Greenside as the view would be improved by the treelined gable end and shield the view of the existing pallet yard and agricultural machinery.

Councillor Sterling queried the variety of agricultural activity carried out on site, the intended use of the proposed building and suitability of the location and proximity to the pallet yard.  Mr Barrass confirmed that agricultural use of the land included hay production, sheep grazing under licence, and horses which were kept for recreational purposes. The building would be used to store equipment including a tractor with required attachments, and to provide shelter for livestock in adverse weather. Alternative sites had been considered however limitations of a boundary of common land and a ravine to the north of the site made the proposed site the most suitable location. The opening of the building was placed facing the pallet yard to provide access from the field which faced southwest as livestock would enter the building from this direction.

Councillor Watson noted that there were no objections from the Muggleswick Parish Council or the Ecology Officer who had reviewed the Ecology Impact Assessment and the BNG statement was sufficient to mitigate environmental impact with no further survey work necessary. As such he urged Members to approve the application with the agreed conditions in place to support this local business and rural growth.

Clare Cuskin, Senior Lawyer, Planning & Development, advised the Committee as to what options she considered were lawfully available to it. The Committee was advised that there was a legal requirement to secure the required level of BNG. This had not yet been agreed and further information had been submitted by the Applicant which was still under view to ensure the required level of BNG could be achieved. As the Council were not currently satisfied that there were reasonable prospects of the required BNG being capable of being delivered, the Senior Lawyer advised Members of the Committee that she considered the following options were the only lawful options available – i) deferment of the application to allow for sufficient time to consider the further information, ii) refusal of the application or iii) a minded to grant resolution with authority being delegated to officers to grant permission subject to resolution of the BNG issues.

Councillor Blakey added that further information had been submitted by the applicant and was under review, confirmation that the statutory BNG requirement could be met was still not confirmed and moved a motion to defer the application until the ecology conditions were satisfied.

Councillor C Martin noted the points made by Officers regarding the conditions on meeting the BNG requirement and seconded a deferral.

Councillor Earley commented that there was also need to support a pre-existing business which could be impacted, having been granted permission for a holiday let. Granting a further application for the construction of a large agricultural building in close proximity would not support local business diversification. He noted that there had been no objections from Muggleswick Parish Council but as a Planning Committee there was a need to ensure that policy and national guidance was followed, and he supported the motion to defer the application.

Councillor Shaw asked for clarification on what issues could be resolved by a deferral. The Principal Planning Officer advised that as outlined in the report, there was a requirement for the Applicant to demonstrate the operation of extensive agricultural activity on the land. Subject to conditions being satisfied the landscape harm could not be mitigated in the medium term as tree planting would take seven to ten years to establish. The proposed plan to satisfy the BNG requirement was still ongoing, however the Agent had submitted further information that was under review.

Councillor Sterling noted that a motion to defer had been put forward and seconded. She added that on interrogation of the submitted information the proposed mitigation scheme had not taken into account features that would directly impact the ability to achieve the required 10% BNG, and despite requests for updated documentation this has not been received before Committee met. Councillor Sterling moved that the application be refused on the grounds of the outstanding issues which had been outlined in the report.

The Senior Lawyer advised that Council standard process would require a vote on the first motion seconded for deferral before a vote could be taken to refuse an application.

Councillor Blakey withdrew the motion to defer the application.

Councillor Shaw seconded the motion to refuse the application.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused as per the recommendations set out within the report.