PAPER B
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 1 MARCH 2002
Temporary contractor’s office, contractor’s compound and soil storage, St Cross Business Park, Newport, Isle of Wight
Summary
To consider whether the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the contractor’s offices, storage depot facility and soil storage mound from St Cross Business Park, Newport.
A complaint was received back in August/September 2001 that a contractor’s depot had been formed at St Cross Business Park on land which is situated opposite SP Systems premises. The compound was apparently established to service the various developments that have taken place on the St Cross Business Park, but has remained on site. An office had also been constructed on land west of the SPS building.
Members will recall considering a report of 26 September 2001 Development Control Committee meeting at which time it was noted that under Part 4 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 it is permitted development to provide buildings on land, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land.
After considering the circumstances, Members resolved to serve a Planning Contravention Notice seeking further information relating to the nature of the use of the compound and office facility and then to consider whether the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice on one or both facilities.
The Planning Contravention Notice was served and a meeting was held with the owner together with his agent on 24 October 2001. The following information is taken from those responses:
• Office use began in 1998 and is used for general company use, particularly in relation to enquiries regarding development of St Cross Business Park.
• Compound formed 1999 in connection with construction of SPS no. 2 building and new offices for IW Partnership and Innovation Centre.
• Compound used for storage of materials and plant for ongoing and future development of St Cross Business Park, including ongoing remediation work to newly built properties.
• Access road not completed or adopted by the Highway Authority and the machinery within the compound will be used in connection with final surfacing of this road.
• For clarity, Handslip Asphalting no longer use office or compound.
• When asked if further applications will be submitted at St Cross in the near future, response was ‘yes’. Potential appeal against recent refusal for commission for next phase of development and planning permission awaited for Lower St Cross Farm adjoining.
Regarding both the office and the compound, I believe that the first question to consider is whether or not the case can be made that they currently benefit from the exemption under Part 4 of the GPDO. If not, the second question to consider is whether or not their retention meets the general criteria outlined within the Unitary Development Plan policies and if so should planning applications could be invited.
Concerning the office building, the operator has indicated that this is used for general company use, particularly in relation to enquiries regarding development of St Cross Business Park. On balance, I do not consider that the building can continue to argue Part 4 exemption.
With regards to the general planning merits of the office building, I believe that on balance this building is not visually unacceptable within the surrounding area and that a planning application should be invited (without prejudice to the final decision) for its temporary retention.
Turning to the compound, the operator has put forward three basis arguments to suggest that it continues to serve present or immediate proposals on adjoining land. These are firstly, that the access road is incomplete, secondly that the machinery and equipment is required with regards to undertaking post-contract maintenance for the new buildings and thirdly, that it will be used in connection with other forthcoming development on adjoining land.
Regarding completion of the road, I do not consider that the level of equipment within the site would generally be associated with this work. Equally, concerning the claim that the equipment, vehicles and materials within the compound are needed for ongoing maintenance, I believe that all items within the compound are more readily associated with ground works and general construction and not for minor repairs to new buildings. I believe it is far more likely that the items are not required elsewhere at present and that the site is simply being used as a general storage facility. Accordingly, I do not consider that a justifiable argument can be put forward on these grounds.
The operator has also claimed that the compound is required to service potential development on adjoining land. At the present time there are no outstanding planning consents on land at St Cross nor any current appeals. Planning permission has been granted at Lower St Cross Farm for an industrial development, but having spoken with the Council’s Legal Section, the consensus view is that this land cannot be termed as adjacent to the compound and therefore it fails the test under the GPDO. The conclusion is that whilst the compound may have been originally exempt when it was being used in connection with the construction of the SPS buildings, it is not considered that the current circumstances would enable it to benefit from the GPDO rights. Accordingly, its retention does require the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.
In the light of the above, I now propose to consider what the reaction would be if an application were made for its retention.
One of the marketing tools used for attracting employers to the St Cross Business Park is the enhanced visual appearance of the park. This is not assisted by the presence or appearance of the depot. Regarding the Unitary Development Plan policies, I believe that the following apply to this situation:
Strategic Policy S5 and detailed Policies G5 (General Locational Criteria for Development).
D1 (Standards of Design).
D2 (Standards for Development within the Site)
On balance, I do not consider that when applying these policies, an application for the retention of the contractor’s depot would be encouraged or supported in this location.
There is also a quantity of topsoil and earth being stored on the land adjacent the contractor’s depot. This was sourced from the development sites on the Business Park. On the basis that there is no signs of continued development of the Business Park, I believe that the presence of the mound represents a change of use of the land which is not covered by any permitted development rights. The practicalities of keeping this storage area in an appropriate appearance leads me to believe that a planning application would not be encouraged for the same reasons as the contractor’s depot and accordingly this should also be addressed through any proposed enforcement action.
None.
1. To invite an application for the retention of the office building.
2. To invite an application for the retention of the contractor’s compound and the soil storage area.
3. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the clearance of the vehicles, equipment and materials, together with the dismantling of the security fencing which has been used to form a contractor’s compound and also the removal of the soil mound.
Time period for compliance – three months.
4. To accept the case as put forward by the operator and accept that both the office, the contractor’s compound and the use of the land for soil storage benefits from the exemption granted under Class 4 of the GPDO.
In conclusion, whilst I acknowledge that the office building has certain links with St Cross Business Park, the operator has acknowledged that it is also used in connection with his other interests off site. Under this circumstance, I do not consider that the office can claim an exemption under the GPDO and therefore its retention requires the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority. In so far as the contractor’s compound is concerned, whilst its original formation was in connection with ongoing activities on adjoining land, this has now ceased and whilst I note the information put forward by the operator, I find that these justifications too weak to argue that a compound of this type and nature should continue to be exempt under Part 4 of the GDPO.
Whilst I would be content to invite a retrospective application for the temporary office building, I believe that the contractor’s compound no longer qualifies as permitted development and because of its position and appearance, I do not consider that an application for its retention should be encouraged but rather enforcement action should be authorised. This also applies to the soil storage facility.
Recommendation That options 1 and 3 be adopted :
1. To invite an application for the retention of the office building.
3. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the clearance of the vehicles, equipment and materials, together with the dismantling of the security fencing which has been used to form a contractor’s compound and also the removal of the soil mound.
Time period for compliance – three months. |
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services