Agenda item

Grain store and machinery store.

Deferred

Mr Power introduced the application.

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet regarding the review of the Local Plan, explaining that consultation on a Preferred Approach Local Plan had taken place and that following consideration of the responses, it was intended that the Council would publish a Submission Local Plan under Regulation 19 early in 2021. 

Mr Power gave a verbal correction with regards to the location of the application as cited within the report.

Mr Power played a short video which had been requested to be shown by one of the objectors. 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee: 

Mr Brian Reeves – Parish Council

Mr Graeme Maycock – Objector

Mr Julian Moore – Objector

Dr Jill Sutcliffe – Objector (from Campaign for the Protection of Rural England {Sussex})

Mrs Lesley Pardoe – Supporter

Mrs Rachel Strange – Agent

The Chairman sought clarification regarding ‘article 4’ and whether it should be invoked as referenced by one of the speakers.  Mr Whitty responded he presumed what had been referred to was article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which allowed local authorities to remove general permitted rights for areas of land where there were good grounds to do so, but that was normally undertaken in advance, required consultation and was a policy-related tool rather than a reactive tool (citing the example of an article 4 for the Chichester Conservation Area which prevented the replacement of windows) which could not be used once the process had been invoked.  Miss Golding confirmed that an article 4 direction could be issued provided it was prior to the date of any approval of any prior approval. The complication was that if a prior approval was refused unreasonably, and was subsequently allowed on appeal, and in the meantime had been issued with an article 4 direction, and in this situation it was doubtful that the article 4 direction would stand. 

Members commented on the need to support food production which may outweigh landscape concerns, further concerns regarding the differences between officer advice and the information put forward by the parish council and objectors, and the scale of the building and traffic.  Members further commented on the considerable public interest in terms of objections, concerns regarding the location on a green site, near to the road and the belief that agricultural buildings were required to be clustered together, and with regards to the GPDO, that it was within 25 metres of the highway. 

Members sought clarification between the application and a ‘full’ application. 

Mr Power advised that the proposed building was not within 25 metres of a classified road and confirmed the applicant was not proposing any alterations to the access.  In regards to the scale of the building, policy 45 allowed for agricultural buildings to be located within the countryside, provided size, scale and materials used would have minimum impact.  The size and scale of the farm had to be considered including the requirement for the storage of machinery and material from the land and the farm, and that the building was broadly in line with the requirement.   With regards to the siting, other locations had been considered, the conservation area was to the north of the site, there were also restrictions on access, and that amendments had been made in accordance with officer recommendation.  Mr Power added that GPDO and the Local Plan accepted the principle of building in the countryside.

Members further commented on the interpretation of the definition of the countryside and the need to balance protection of the countryside and need to produce food.  Members sought clarification regarding whether this determination could be deferred to obtain further information from the highways authority with regards to the junction or for the Committee to undertake a site visit.  Mr Whitty advised and that the difference between the application and a full application was that a full application required all matters to be considered and if that was in front of the Committee there would be grounds to refuse with regards to highway concerns.  However the Government had effectively granted outline permission via the GDPO, and that there was a requirement for a building of the proposed size to meet the needs of the farmer.  The Committee did not have the power to refuse the application on the grounds of access, only on siting and design.  The view of the highway authority was documented, they considered this was potentially an unsafe access, which they may need to address, but the Committee could not consider access.  Should the highway authority attend Committee, they may provide further details other than those which had been presented.

Mr Sutton proposed and Mrs Sharp seconded:

To defer the decision for further investigations, and information as to the alternative siting of the building.  

RESOLVED

Recommendation to defer the decision agreed.