See joint report on application no. LBC/5674S/P1569/00.

           1. Recommendation -       Refusal

2. Recommendation -        That enforcement action be authorised requiring the cessation of the use of the land at rear for open storage, the dismantling of the storage racks and the removal of all items associated with the distribution business. Time period for compliance of six months.

3. Recommendation -          The applicant be invited to submit an application for the continued use for the open storage area, the use of the adjoining barn and the siting of the portakabin (without prejudice to the final decision).

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

The applications relate to two sites, the first to a piece of ground at the rear of Canaan, a residential property located on the eastern side of the main road through Chale Green. This land has previously been used in connection with an agricultural contractor's business which occupies open ground to the north of the current application site and also involves the use of a range of buildings located between Canaan and Nivana which is another residential property on the eastern side of the main road. To the south of the application site is open agricultural land whilst to the east is a hedge beyond which the land rises.

The second part of the application site relates to part of a barn and yard located between Canaan and Nivana on the road frontage. The yard lies behind a stone wall and a deep roadside verge. The wall is broken at the northern end by an access point.

Relevant History

In July 1998 an application for a Lawful Development Certificate was refused for continued use of land for the storage and testing of agricultural machinery and equipment on a site to the land to rear of Nivana through to 2 Steyne Villas on the grounds that the applicant failed to provide appropriate evidence to indicate that the use had taken place for a period in excess of ten years.

An Enforcement Notice was served with an effective date of 24 November 1998 giving six months for the land to be cleared and restored to an agricultural field.

A Lawful Development Certificate application on a reduced area running between Nivana and Canaan was considered and accepted in May 1999.

An appeal which had been submitted against the Enforcement Notice was withdrawn following the approval of the second Lawful Development Certificate application. This set a new date for compliance of 1 December 1999. At the meeting on 2 January 2000, the Planning Committee considered a report noting that the operator had withdrawn from the most contentious area but was continuing to undertake the Pipewise operation as he had been unable to relocate. This 'Pipewise' undertaking was a new business venture in addition to the established operation. Information was submitted in support of their efforts to move. Whilst the Committee agreed that the use was inappropriate in this location, they were mindful of the potential impact on the general business operation and agreed to delay action seeking compliance with the Enforcement Notice. A further report was considered at the 11 July 2000 Planning Committee meeting, noting the operator's continued presence on site and agreeing again to suspend any prosecution until the end of July 2000.

Subsequent discussions with the applicant's agent and the Legal Section raised the question whether the pipe supply business was actually covered by the Enforcement Notice. Having considered the evidence, the judgement was that the Pipewise business may well be excluded. In response, application has been made to retain the use.

Details of Applications

Applicant seeks both full planning permission and listed building consent for operation of an additional enterprise from site which already has established use as an agricultural maintenance facility.

Full planning permission sought for continuing to use part of the agricultural contractor's open storage area for the storage of pipes and associated items together with the siting of a portable building in the yard area between the barn and Nivana and use part of that listed barn as a trade counter and part of the open yard for storage with associated items.

Submitted plans show intention to use approximately 40% of the open agricultural contractor's storage area behind the road frontage buildings in connection with the Pipewise storage operation. In addition to ground storage, plans show proposal to utilise three racking areas which range in height from one metres, three metres and four metres. The northern boundary of the Pipewise storage area to the agricultural contractor's storage area is open whilst the southern boundary extends 9 metres further than the defined Lawful Development Certificate area with a newly planted Leylandii hedge defining the limit. The site runs up to the eastern hedgerow boundary and on the western side abuts the rear of Canaan. Access to this area will utilise the existing concrete roadway which runs on the northern side of Canaan and provides access to the agricultural contractor's buildings and the open storage area.

Regarding the second site, the plans show the intention to utilise approximately 110 square metres of the yard area for open storage and also introduce a portakabin 3 metres by 6 metres abutting the barn of which approximately 25 square metres would be used as a trade counter.

When the application was first submitted, an accompanying letter was also submitted, this has been followed by a further letter outlining additional information. Both letters are copied and attached to this report for Members' information.

More recent letter states that if use operated from about two years without causing any problems, it should be acceptable and it benefits rural employment.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Chale does not have development envelope.

The sites lie within an area considered to be open countryside within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered to apply.

Strategic Policies:

S4 - The Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S5 - Proposals for development will, on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies) will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

Detailed policies:

G4 (General Locational Criteria of Development)

G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements)

G10 (Potential Conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding users).

D1 (Standards of Design).

B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings).

B3 (Change of Use of Listed Buildings).

E8 (Employment Development in the Countryside).

C1 (Protection of Landscape Character).

C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

C17 (Conversion of Barns and other rural buildings).

Representations

Chale Parish Council has no objection.

Highway Engineer does not wish to comment, as proposal has no highway implications.

AONB Officer (memo summarised).

Noted fronting onto the green, yard had various items of building material stored within it.

The storage area to the rear is well hidden from the road.

Within village settings, small scale contracting work associated with rural industries may not be out of place and could provide employment and income.

Understand premises used for the storage and sale of pipework associated with major contracts. This alters nature of business considerably and affect the type of traffic likely to call at site.

This aspect of the business would cause concern from an AONB perspective and would be better suited to a more centralised industrial estate type location.

Would object to any continuation of a substantial contracting business serving more than local need which involves storage large amounts of equipment not generally required for local rural options.

Two letters of objection received (main points summarised).

No objection to temporary use in hope that applicants find alternative premises.

Given nature and volume of traffic, do not consider this use belongs in countryside.

Previous application rejected with Enforcement Notice and find it incredible application on a larger site now being considered.

Object on the grounds of noise, air pollution (dust) and that scheme is detrimental to AONB.

This an inappropriate use in the village of Chale and is gradually creating an industrial estate.

Submitted plans do not show land holdings accurately in that we purchase land at the rear to extend our garden over 20 years ago.

Nor do plans show site surrounded by land within applicant's family control.

Concerned that since excavations on site, have suffered from drainage problems.

Note recent Inspector's decision relating to bike shed and believe Pipewise is more intrusive than that operation.

One letter of support from a member of the applicant's family who lives in an adjoining property.

Evaluation

Determining factors with regard to the planning application are firstly, whether the proposal conforms with the Council's general planning policies with regard to development in this locality, secondly the weight that should be given to the Lawful Development Certificate which applies to the use of most of the application site, thirdly traffic implications and finally, the impact of the operation on the amenities of adjoining residential properties.

In so far as the listed building consent proposal is concerned, main issue relates to the impact the presence of the portable building and surrounding use will have on setting of the listed building.

I propose to deal with the planning application first and then turn to the listed building consent proposal.

With regards to general policy I believe it is a question of weighing up the general landscape protection policies, (C1 - Protection of Landscape Character, C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) against those policies which support employment based activities within rural areas (G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements and E8 - Employment in the Countryside). Although the applicant has already been operating a business at this site, the Pipewise operation is new. Given the number of people employed (four) and the fact that this operation could be located anywhere on the Island, I do not believe on balance that the proposal is in accordance with the Council's general planning policies with regard to development within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I believe that this view is supported by the comments of the AONB Officer.

Turning to the second point on the planning history of the site, Members will note from the report above that the majority of the application site has the benefit of a Lawful Development Certificate for the storage and testing of agricultural machinery and equipment. This is clearly a material consideration that should be taken into account. A similar situation arose in Ningwood where a Lawful Development Certificate had been granted for a mobile home and an application and subsequent appeal was made seeking to replace this unit with a permanent dwelling. Regarding the weight to be given to the LDC in that case the Planning Inspector at that time made the following observation. "... The grant of the certificate results from the operation of immunity provisions in Part 7 of the 1990 Act (as amended) which depend upon the passage of time .... and involves no consideration of the planning merits of the residential use of the appeal site." At this site the Lawful Development Certificate relates to a use which clearly has a greater affinity with the surrounding countryside area and involves the retention on site of agricultural equipment which would not appear discordant with the overall landscape. In contrast, the Pipewise operation relates to the storage of plastic pipes, septic tanks and other associated items, some of which are stored in tall racking facilities and which by their very nature appear alien in the overall landscape. On this basis, I do not consider that the weight to be given to the certificate is sufficient to justify overriding the relevant planning policies.

Concerning the third point on traffic matters the Highway Engineer raised no objection.

Finally, regarding the impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties, although I note applicant's attempt to screen the site by the introduction of conifers I am of the opinion that the various items kept by Pipewise would not readily be associated with a rural location and I would draw a distinct difference between their visual appearance as opposed to a view out towards agricultural machinery and equipment parked on the land. For clarification, I would draw a distinction between the use of the land at the rear of the site and the use of part of the yard area and the adjoining portacabin which sits next to the existing buildings. The yard area and adjoining building has been used for some time in association with a commercial activity and under those circumstances, I do not see a planning objection to this part of the application. However, as Members may be aware it is not possible to support one part of a scheme if a further element is unacceptable.

Regarding the application for Listed Building consent for the siting of the portable building which lies adjacent to the barn, the listed structure is of a simple nature and on balance, I believe that a temporary consent for this facility would be appropriate in this particular location.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that the introduction of the Pipewise operation insofar as it relates to the use of the land at the back of the buildings is inappropriate because of its impact on the landscape and on the amenities of the adjoining residential properties. If Members support this recommendation it would be necessary to follow this through with an enforcement action. In this regard, applicant has made some efforts to find an alternative location and this information was submitted as part of the application. A period of 6 months to relocate would not be inappropriate.

If on the basis that Members accept that the use at the back of the site is inappropriate but that the use of part of the yard area for open storage, the adjoining building as an office facility and the introduction of the portakabin are acceptable within general planning criteria, then an application could be invited (without prejudice to final decision) for these items alone. This is reflected in the recommendations outlined below.

With regards to the application for Listed Building consent I believe that this can be supported subject to a temporary consent.

            Recommendation     -           Approval (temporary consent)

Conditions/Reasons: