Agenda item

Grain store and machinery store.

Refuse

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to the agenda update sheet.  Mr Mew also provided a verbal report explaining that further information had been received on behalf of the applicant regarding clarification on the access arrangements and swept path analysis, and a further third party comment had been received regarding the need/lack of need for the building.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Brian Reeves – Parish Council

Graeme Maycock – Objector

Dermot McCaffery – Objector

Jill Sutcliffe – Objector

Rachel Strange – Applicant

Mr Whitty responded to Members questions and comments.  Mr Whitty began by drawing Members attention to the three reasons for refusal detailed on the update, explaining the first two consisted of the legal views of officers, that this development did not constitute permitted development.  The third reason related to concerns regarding the impact on the highway.  Mr Whitty advised that if the third issue on balance was considered to be acceptable by the Committee due to its rural location the first two were legal opinion and should the application be granted would be open to legal challenge.  Miss Golding added the first reason for refusal related to a potential danger to highway users and if Members did not consider the application would result in a danger to highway users, the first reason for refusal would fall away.  However the second reason for refusal stated that if the works were within 25 metres of a metalled classified road, the application would not sit within permitted development legislation.  Miss Golding advised that if the Committee were minded to permit the application, the correct course of action would be to invite a full application.

Mr Mew explained that the building itself was not a reason for refusal, but it was the proximity of the whole development to the classified road.  The third reason for refusal cited insufficient information to demonstrate that the siting of the proposal would not result in a material intensification of use to the access and there was some doubt in relation to the plant business and the movement this may create in terms of the use of the building.  Mr Mew further responded that the application was deferred in March this year.  It had taken this time to reach the current position and officers had considered the application carefully, balancing the importance of farming and food production with what had been proposed, and taking the legal opinions into account had led to the recommendation before the Committee.  The need for the building was recognised and a planning application could be brought forward and highway improvement works undertaken to address the issues. 

Mr Mew confirmed officers did not have the details regarding the stopping distance for standing vehicle and in relation to further signage, the highway authority had reservations in terms of how effective that may be.

Mr Mew advised the need to consider the development as a whole under the current proposal, and there was doubt in terms of what the building would facilitate with altering the access under the prior approval.  Mr Whitty added it would be perverse for applicants of prior approval to leave out elements which were not prior approval, but would realistically be required.

Mr Whitty reminded Members that this was not a planning application, but a prior approval application, although in the second stage, therefore finite distances were important with regards to a legal status and whether it could be taken under General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). If the development was within 25 metres of the metalled road it would fail the test, which was a legal determination.  Mr Whitty added the test applied in the NPPF was not one of safety but function and the test in the GPDO related to safety.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Refuse.