REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION
– 21 MAY 2004
|
|
TCP/21581/D P/00441/04 Parish/Name: Newport Registration
Date: 27/02/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568 Continued
use of site for a taxi operating centre and retention of associated
buildings/structures Pt OS
Parcel 8700, land at North Fairlee Farm, Fairlee Road, Newport, PO30 |
This is an amended report which includes additional advice for Members
prepared by the Development Control Manager on a variety of issues relative to
this particular case.
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
During a recent discussion with the Local Member, Councillor Andrew
Mellor, he expressed concerns regarding potential loss of employment of an
Island business if a suitable location could not be found from which applicant
could operate. Therefore, he requested
that this matter was reported to the Committee for determination.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 10 weeks
to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of
applications due to the request from the Local Member that the matter is
referred to Committee for consideration.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to an irregular shaped plot of land in corner of
field to west of north Fairlee Road and on the immediate western side of access
road to Newport Waste Water Treatment Works. Site is heavily screened on eastern
boundary by existing mature hedgerow with an access opening south of this
field. Area has been gravelled and incorporates two storage containers, one
measuring 13 metres by 2.4 metres which is used for storage by the farmer and
the second 6 metres by 2.5 metres which is used by the applicant, both are 2.5
metres high. A portakabin in a drab green colour is sited in the area measuring
9.25 metres by 6.8 metres and 3.3 metres in height, which is used as an office.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/21581 – Outline consent granted December 1994 for a transit
warehouse and use of land as ancillary lorry park.
TCP/21581/A – Approval of reserved matters for warehouse, depot and
lorry park granted December 1994.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought to continue use of the site for a taxi operating
centre and retention of associated buildings/structures. Use involves parking of vehicles at site
when not in use and portakabin provides radio control operator's room, a driver's
rest room, kitchen, toilet and small store.
The submission was accompanied by document produced by applicant's agent
which provides information in support of the proposal and is attached to this
report as an appendix.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:
S1 – New development
will be concentrated within existing urban areas
S2 – Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously
developed (brown field) sites rather than undeveloped (green field) sites.
Green field sites will only be allocated for development where they are
extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brown field sites
exist.
S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development
G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages
G4 – General locational criteria for development
G5 – Development outside defined settlements
D1 – Standards of design
D14 – Light spillage
E1 – Promote suitably located new employment uses
E8 – Employment in the countryside
C1 – Protection of landscape character
TR7 – Highway considerations for new development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
After liaising with Highways department they do not wish to comment on
this application as they are of the opinion there are no highway implications.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received from Local Member, Councillor Mellor, supporting the
application on the grounds which can be summarised as follows:
Two letters received from local residents objecting to the application
on the grounds which can be summarised as follows:
CRIME & DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in considering application are whether use of site
as a taxi operating centre is acceptable in principle and whether it is
appropriate development in the countryside.
Members will recall that following a decision made at Development
Control Committee, 22 July 2003, an Enforcement Notice was served on Alpha
Taxis regarding the operation of a taxi
business from 34 Mayfield Drive, Newport. This Notice was served on 11
September 2003 requiring the cessation of the operation of a taxi business at
the site with the exception of one radio operator who may operate the taxi
radio equipment only at one time from the land. The period for compliance was three months. This matter was
subsequently the subject of an appeal which was dismissed and the notice upheld
by the Inspector, one of the issues being inappropriate location within a
residential area. The Inspector's
decision letter was dated 7 April 2004.
I would also like to draw to Members attention to previous approval
granted in 1994 for a warehouse of approximately 1100 square metres including
office and welfare facilities for site staff and lorry drivers together with
parking for up to 40 articulated vehicles and 27 cars. At the time of
determining this application consideration was given to the type of use
involved, the employment implications and the access requirements of the
operator, close to main road serving ferry connections to the mainland. In addition, the haulage firm involved were,
at that time, operating from a site on Newport Quay, accessed over Sea Street
and along the harbour area which was considered to be less than ideal by reason
of the size of vehicles involved.
These factors were considered to be sufficient to justify approval in
this location.
Agent refers to PPG4 - Industrial and Commercial Development and Small
Firms, which is relevant to proposals by small firms and encourages Local
Planning Authorities to be positive and that Councils should not place undue
obstacles in the way of investment and jobs.
In addition, agent advises that there are budget restrictions in
connection with the purchase or lease of sites zoned for employment purposes
and in consequence have approached this authority in respect of relocating to
Dodnor Industrial Park but were advised this was not an acceptable location.
Notwithstanding the desirability of avoiding disruption to a small
business PPG18 - Enforcing Planning Control, makes it clear that it is not the
responsibility of the Local Planning Authority to seek out and suggest
alternative sites and I do not consider the possible difficulty in finding a
convenient alternative base for the business justifies it to continue in the
present inappropriate location.
However, PPG18 also provides guidance on appropriate timescales for enforcing
against unauthorised development and advises that Local Planning Authorities
should have regard for the possible implications for the business and potential
loss of employment as a result of any action requiring the business to
relocate. In this instance, having
regard to the retrospective nature of the application, should Members be minded
to refuse the application, it would be
necessary to initiate enforcement proceedings requiring the cessation of the
work and reinstatement of the land to its former condition. In determining the appropriate timescales
for such action, it will be necessary to have regard for the advice in the PPG.
As well as the siting of a portakabin type office and two storage
containers proposal also involves the parking at the site of 4 Euro Taxis, 1
private hire car, 1 eight-seater coach, 2 sixteen-seater coaches, a 21 seater
coach and a breakdown truck. The majority of these will be parked overnight and
during the day the cars which belong to the employees will be parked at the
site whilst they are at work. Agent has provided the anticipated times of
movement of vehicles and I do not feel this aspect of the proposal presents any
problems in this instance as there are no nearby residential properties that
will be affected.
Guidance contained within PPG1- General Policies and
Principles, states:
“Where development is proposed on land adjoining urban areas, its impact
on its surroundings and nearby land uses should be considered carefully.”
Furthermore, the guidance contained within PPG7, Planning Policies for the
Countryside, states that:
“Development should benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance
the environment.”
Whilst I appreciate nearby residents will not be
affected, consideration needs to be given to both national and local policy to
protect the landscape beauty and character of the countryside. I am of the
opinion that proposal does not maintain the distinctiveness of the area and
presents an incongruous use on the individuality of the area, especially when
taking into account siting of associated structures, importing of gravel,
parking of vehicles and sensor operated security lights.
I do take note of the employment issues raised and in
that context would emphasise that the Council does promote and encourage the
development of new and existing employment uses providing they are suitably
located. Policy E8 of the Unitary Development Plan details criteria which
should be met by proposals for employment related developments on land outside
the development envelope boundaries. In
accordance with the policy, proposals for employment in the countryside will be
expected to be of benefit to the rural economy, be of a scale appropriate to
the location and to satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in the policy,
including reuse of suitable buildings or development associated with working
farm complexes. Clearly this proposal is not reusing existing buildings and the
provision of new structures is in direct conflict with policy.
Agent also refers to Policy C15 suggesting that
current proposal represents diversification of farming enterprise and that this
particular site is within a farm which earns an income from the leasing of this
land. However, the policy is quite clear that development in connection with
the diversification of the business of an existing farm or estate will be
permitted as long as evidence is provided to show that the proposed enterprise
will be well integrated within the existing operation. In the absence of a
'whole farm plan' the authority is unable to fully identify the employment and
economic benefits of the proposal. In this instance, whilst the owner of the
land may receive an income from leasing the land, I do not consider the use
involved represents an appropriate form of diversification. In particular, there is no direct
relationship between the farm activities and the use involved and is considered
to be inappropriate in this location.
This was regarded as a relatively straightforward case with a firm
recommendation to refuse permission on the grounds that this retrospective
application involves the introduction of a commercial operation unrelated to
the needs of agriculture in the open countryside which is contrary to national,
strategic and local planning policies contained in the Unitary Development
Plan.
Notwithstanding the fact that the report clearly sets out the position that should be adopted by
the Council, as Local Planning Authority, there appears to be sympathy if not
support for an application which is clearly contrary to policy. This is despite
advice from professional officers as to the implications of granting
(temporary) permission in combination with open and transparent guidance on how
Members may see fit to exercise discretionary enforcement powers which would
require the eventual cessation of this unauthorised use, removal of any
structures and returning the land to its former condition.
My view having investigated the matter is that there is a fundamental
issue here that involves the application of basic development control
principles in combination with the primacy of the Development Plan as required
by Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The relevant policies have been set out earlier in
this report and, in my opinion, the determination of this application in the
simplest terms relates to the relevant strategic policy (S4), which states that
the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.
Progressing to local planning policies G5 sets out a
number of criteria which may involve favourable consideration of an application
for development outside defined settlements but only where the proposal
requires a rural location or is of benefit to the rural economy. In my view it
would be very difficult to argue that the continued use of this site as a base
for a commercial taxi operation required a rural location or was of any benefit
to the rural economy.
The other policy which would appear to be relevant to this particular
application is E8 (Employment in the Countryside).
Planning applications for employment related development on land outside
the development envelope boundaries will be approved where the proposal is of
benefit to the rural economy, is of a scale and design appropriate for the
location and meets at least one of the following criteria:
a)
The development
allows for the expansion of firms which could not be expected to relocate;
b)
The application is
for the reuse of a suitable agricultural or other appropriate rural building;
c)
Where the
development is associated with an existing farm complex or other employment
operation and is compatible with, and complimentary to, that use.
This application does not involve an expansion of an
operation already sited in the countryside; it does not involve the reuse of
(redundant) agricultural buildings and is clearly not complimentary to the use
of North Fairlee Farm for agricultural purposes.
Members raised some issues in relation to what defines agricultural
diversification and on this particular point the Committee may find the
following advice extracted from national and local planning policies helpful.
The Council recognise that the role that rural areas
can play in the economic regeneration of the Island and will encourage
appropriate development for employment related purposes, providing certain
safeguards are met. The Council will allow the limited expansion of existing
firms and the development of industries appropriate to the countryside where
these can be located in suitable buildings, or within working farm complexes.
It is my firm view that retrospective application for a commercial operation that does not require a rural
location is clearly contrary to national planning guidance and the
strategic/local planning policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan
particularly those relating to the countryside and employment.
The other issue raised by Members in mitigation
related to an outline planning permission granted almost ten years ago for a
transit warehouse and use of land as an ancillary lorry park. At the time it
was the existing location of a haulage firm that persuaded the former Medina
Borough Council to make an exception to their normally restrictive rural
policies to allow the establishment of this commercial use on this site and
adjacent land. In the event this permission was not implemented and expired about five years ago. Members have
already been advised that because of the particular circumstances appertaining
to that case at the time; the fact that the permission was not implemented;
that the permission has now expired and the time that has elapsed since that
decision was taken means that although it is a material consideration it is a
factor which in the view of your professional officers should be given very
minimal weight.
On the basis on the information contained in the first part of this
section of the report; the verbal advice offered by officers at the last
meeting; and the additional advice added to the original report at the end of
this section Members are asked to note that this is a very firm recommendation
to refuse permission.
On the assumption that the Committee will be prepared
to accept this particular aspect of the overall recommendation those Members
who have concerns about the effect of such a decision on the business will need
to consider carefully the options open to the Council, as Local Planning Authority,
in terms of enforcing that decision while giving due deference to the need to
adopt a realistic position and local objections to the continued use while
offering a sufficient degree of latitude to the applicant in terms of time for
him to find alternative premises and relocate. This is irrespective of whether
or not he feels confident enough in his case to exercise his right of appeal in
respect of the refusal of planning permission.
I happen to believe that the compliance period outlined in the second
recommendation is reasonable and in accordance with national advice and our own
policies particularly if you give due regard to the time that needs to be taken
to formally collect detailed information to allow the Council to serve the
notice, the drafting of the notice, the 28 days that need to elapse after the
service of the notice before it becomes effective all in combination with the
applicant’s right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. However, if the
Committee feel uncomfortable with the timescale set out in this recommendation
because of the employment implications and/or possible difficulties in finding
suitable location for the particular use there is the option to extend either
period or the overall period to allow the applicant to identify suitable
premises/land from which to operate his business.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission,
consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to
Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of
Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this
development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may
be some interference with the rights of the applicant to operate his business
from the land, it is considered that
the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the
Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all
material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the use of the site for the operation of a taxi
business is an inappropriate development in the countryside, does not maintain
or protect the landscape and is detrimental to the landscape character and
local distinctiveness of the area. In view of the above the proposal is
considered to be contrary to policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan.
1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the
proposal, which comprises of undesirable and inappropriate use in the
countryside, would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and
therefore contrary to Strategic Policies S1 (New Development will be
Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas), S4 (The Countryside will be
Protected from Inappropriate Development) and Policies G4 (General Locational
Criteria for Development), G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and
C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION - Enforcement action is instigated requiring
the cessation of the use of the site as a taxi operating centre, the removal of
the portakabin and storage containers and reinstatement of land to its former
or an agreed condition, including the removal of the gravel parking area. Period for compliance - 6 months for
cessation of use with a further 3 months for removal of structures and
reinstating the land.
Head of Planning
Services