AGENDA ITEM 11
12/00522/FUL
ERECTION
OF
REPLACEMENT
GENERAL
PURPOSE
AGRICULTURAL
BUILDING
AT
THORNFIELDS FARM, CELLARHEAD FOR A & D
SHUKER.
12/00616/FUL
CONTINUED USE OF FARM SHOP & COURTYARD
FOR THE DISPLAY / SALE OF AGRICUTURAL,
EQUINE & PET ASSOCIATED GOODS AT
THORNFIELDS FARM, CELLARHEAD FOR A & D
SHUKER.
Parish: Werrington
Case Officer: Miss R Simpkin
Registration: 22/05/12 & 9/07/12
Grid Reference: 9461 4570
THE APPLICATION
Application ref. 12/00522/FUL site seeks retrospective consent for the retention
of a replacement general purpose agricultural building at Thornfields Farm,
Cellarhead. It is a single span steel framed building measuring 23.0m x 20.0m
and clad with green box profile steel roofing sheets to three sides and also part of
the south elevation. The remainder of the south elevation is open to the eaves
which are 5.7m in height. Notably, the ridge height of the proposal is 8.4m. The
building is orientated with its gable facing the road frontage, it is positioned to the
“side” northeast of the access and is set back from the highway verge by
approximately 1.0m.
Application ref. 12/00616/FUL concerns the ‘continued’ use of a single storey
brick and tile building, its forecourt, parking and access as a farm shop at
Thornfields Farm, Cellarhead. The Agent states that the application follows an
‘Enforcement Notice’ alleging the mixed use of the whole site (including various
farm buildings) for agriculture and retail sales. It is stated that the purpose of the
application is to define the area where retail activity can legitimately take place
and to ensure that it is separate from the farming activities on the site. It is
understood that the shop stocks the following items for sale: pet food; equestrian
feeds, tack, equipment and accessories; livestock feeds and forage; home
produced meats and a small quantity of refreshments. The farm shop is broadly
positioned within the centre of the site.
A Design and Access Statement for each proposal and an Agricultural
Justification concerning the building have been submitted, which Members are
encouraged to read prior to the meeting.
In respect of the shop, it is outlined that the applicants have owned the site since
the beginning of June 2002. Before that, it is understood that farm sales took
place from the application building, principally eggs and vegetables, some of
11.1
AGENDA ITEM 11
which were produced on site, some being imported. However, from June 2002
the building was used to sell a far greater range of goods including agricultural,
equine and pets products and feed. Also, Mr Shuker is a butcher and operates
from a shop in Crewe selling butchered meat that is grown on the farm. This
range of goods has continued up to the present day.
The Agricultural Appraisal is summarised as follows: 75 acres of grassland, 2
storey red brick farmhouse and a range of modern agricultural buildings within a
ring fence; 178 sheep; 70 cattle; farm shop selling home produce and purchased
produce, and, a large quantity of agricultural machinery used by the business on
the farm.
The appraisal describes the buildings on the farm as follows:
Building 1 (Machinery Store) is a single span steel framed building measuring
15.86m x 17.38m and clad with green box profile steel roofing sheets to three
sides with a concrete block skirting. The northern elevation opens onto the farm
yard. The building has an eaves height of 3.05m.
Building 2 (Straw Barn) is a single span steel framed building measuring 22.57m
x 18.91m and clad with green box profile steel roofing sheets to three sides and
part of the south elevation, the remainder of the south elevation is open to the
eaves which are 4.57m in height. The submitted appraisal noted that on the day
of inspection this building contained the following: Manitou SLT 415 telehandler;
large quantity of round bale wheat straw; large quantity of big square baled wheat
straw; quantity of conventional baled straw; small quantity of conventional baled
hay; small quantity of big square baled hay; 600kg bags of 27-5-0-0 compound
fertilizer.
Building 3 (Farm Shop) is a fully enclosed single storey brick and tile former cow
shipon measuring 26.84m x 6.71m with UPVC windows and doors. The
submitted agricultural appraisal notes on the day of the inspection that the
building contained the following: a large quantity of pet food; a quantity of
equestrian feeds, tack, equipment and accessories; a large quantity of livestock
feeds and forage; a large quantity of home produced meat, and, a small quantity
of refreshments.
Building 4 (Cattle Building) is a single span steel framed building measuring
22.57m x 9.15m and enclosed to three elevations, with a cantilever roof canopy
to the open north elevation. The roof and sides are clad with green box profile
steel roof sheets and have concrete breeze block walls to 2.0m high. The eaves
of the building are 3.35m. The open north elevation has steel feed barriers and
an overhanging canopy. The inside of the shed is divided internally into three
sections with steel livestock gates and a breeze block wall.
Building 5 (Cattle Building) is a single span steel framed building enclosed to
11.2
AGENDA ITEM 11
three elevations measuring 27.14m x 11.89m. The east elevation has two sets of
double steel doors. The eaves of the building are 3.35m. The inside of the
building is divided by a central feed barrier. The south side of the building has
been used for housing cattle. The north side is used as a feed passage.
SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION
The application site forms part of a tightly enclosed farmyard comprising a range
of farm buildings. Against the roadside, to either side of the farm entrance are
two recently erected green metal-sheet clad buildings. The larger one is the
subject of application ref. 12/00522/FUL. The farm shop (ref. 12/00616/FUL) is
broadly within the centre of the site and is a single storey brick and tile building.
There are two adjoining cattle sheds to the rear of the site. The farmland is
located to the rear of these buildings and constitutes some 40 acres of grassland.
The farmhouse, land and buildings adjoin the A520 Leek Road between Meir and
Cellarhead and are accessed by separate means directly off this road. For the
purposes of the Adopted Local Plan, the site is designated as Green Belt and
Special Landscape Area.
PLANNING HISTORY
09/00772/FUL – Replacement of Existing Pig Pens, New Building to form
Butchers Farm Shop with First Floor Residential Accommodation and Car
Parking. Refused.
Enforcement History
On the 17th August 2011, a site visit was conducted by the Council’s Enforcement
Officer further to a complaint regarding several issues, including: pet feed shop,
skip hire / storage, current building work to create a butchers shop and the
demolition of a brick building. It was noted that a group of agricultural buildings
had been demolished at the front of the site. The applicant advised the Council
that they wished to erect a replacement agricultural building to store feed etc.
The Officer clearly advised Mrs Shuker (the applicant) to seek the necessary
planning permissions before carrying out any development. The Officer noted a
single storey brick building used as a pet feed shop, several steel frame farm
buildings to the rear of the site and a steel frame building to the front of the site
(to the left hand side of the access) used to store bags of feed etc. Furthermore,
in front of this building adjacent to the main road there were several skips stored,
some loaded with rubbish. There was no evidence of a butchers shop.
Later on in August, a further site visit was carried out by the Enforcement Officer
following a report that work had started on erecting the roadside building. It was
noted that the frame of the building had been erected. Again, the applicant, Mrs
11.3
AGENDA ITEM 11
Shuker was advised that works should cease and that the Council may decide to
take enforcement action by way of a temporary stop notice followed by an
Enforcement Notice as there were significant concerns over the significant scale
of the building being over 7.0 metres in height. The Officer further explained to
Mrs Shuker that the site was located within the Green Belt and there was
concern that this overly large structure impacted upon openness in respect of the
three smaller traditional buildings that it had replaced.
The applicants, Mr and Mrs Shuker met with Council Enforcement Officers on the
23rd August 2011. They were given planning application forms and advised that
the building was located within the Green Belt. Also, that an agricultural
justification was required for a building of this significant scale and design.
Officers again expressed concern that the building was extremely prominent
when viewed from the roadside and this may in itself be a reason for planning
permission to be refused. Officers clearly stated that it was important to stop
working on the building until the necessary consent had been received.
During November, a further complaint was received concerning the sale of non
animal feed goods and that a building on the site was being used for the storage
of such. Subsequently, an Officer revisited the site to note that the building was
almost complete with an open side adjacent to the access. Mr Shuker stated that
he may install roller shutter doors for security. He informed the Officer that the
replacement building had been moved back from the roadside to lessen impact.
The Officer advised him that no planning application had been received to date,
as promised. Mr Shuker informed the Council that his agent should have
submitted the planning application by now and that he would chase this matter.
He further stated that the building was being utilised for agricultural storage and
for lambs later. The Officer however noted that the building contained haylage /
hay / straw for sale. Whilst there was also a ‘sale’ board adjacent to the main
road advertising: dog food, small pet / agricultural / pigeon / horse feeds; pet
supply’s; supplements; tack; shavings; bedding; haylage; hay; straw; fishing
tackle and bait. Also it was noted that there were still skips stored on the land.
On the 24th November 2011, a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) was issued
and served by the Council regarding the use of the unauthorised building and the
storage of skips. Discussions were also held with the Local Highway Authority
concerning the inadequate parking and turning provision for customers raising
possible highway safety issues.
During December, a completed PCN with covering letter from the agent was
received which stated that he had been instructed to submit a planning
application for the building. Notably, the PCN stated that the building was used
for hay and straw cut from their fields and used to bed and feed their stock.
The agent was contacted during January and February concerning the
submission of the planning applications. A further complaint was received during
11.4
AGENDA ITEM 11
February concerning the new building being used for the storage and retail of
hay, straw, corn etc in connection with the shop.
On the 9th February 2012, a letter was sent to Mr and Mrs Shuker (c/o agent)
advising that the Council would wait a further 7 days for an application to be
submitted for the building before initiating formal enforcement proceedings
seeking removal of the building. It also advised that planning permission would
be required to use the land for retail purposes and for the siting and storage of
skips. It also stated that the Council would wait 28 days for an application to be
submitted before initiating formal enforcement proceedings seeking these uses to
cease.
During February, a planning application for the ‘Retention of General Purpose
Agricultural Building’ (building to the right hand side of the access) was finally
submitted to the Council, however, declared invalid.
At the beginning of March, Officers observed a curtain sided delivery lorry parked
in between the two front buildings and that the building (to the right hand side of
the access) was being used for the storage of hay and housing sheep / lambs.
For the size of the building, however, it appeared relatively underused. Notably,
the building (to the left hand side of the access) evidently contained imported
retail produce with brightly coloured price tags attached with retail produce
spilling out into the yard area.
Enforcement notice 11/00058/BOC was issued and served on the 14th March
2012 for the erection of a large steel frame building (building to the left hand side
of the access). On the 2nd May 2012, email correspondence was received from
the agent requesting the Council to withdraw the notice. The agent suggested
that the notice building was temporarily used for the storage of goods in
connection with the shop whilst the shop was undergoing a refurbishment.
A further site visit was conducted during early May to check the contents of the
buildings and if the single storey brick building (used as a retail shop) was
undergoing refurbishment. The Officer noted that new racking had been installed
at the left hand side of the shop and some of the produce from the notice building
had been re-located to this section of the shop. It appeared that the notice
building, however, was still being used for imported retail storage, albeit a smaller
amount and the price tags had now been removed. A large proportion of the
notice building now housed agricultural machinery that used to be stored behind
the shop building.
The applicant stated that he was carrying out the
refurbishment in stages and that he intended to do the other side of the shop
next.
On the 9th May 2012, a letter from the Planning Inspectorate confirmed the
receipt of appeals against the enforcement notice 11/00058/BOC (building to the
left hand side of the access). Soon after the agent was informed that the Council
11.5
AGENDA ITEM 11
would not be withdrawing the notice in view of the strong case against these
activities. He was advised that the Council were considering serving a notice
against the other unauthorised building (to the right hand side of the access) as
the planning application had been returned and that the business use of the site
to which he referred was unauthorised and was likely to become the subject of
further enforcement action.
On the 22nd May 2012, the planning application in respect of the building to the
right hand side of the access was validated (ref. 12/00522/FUL).
At the beginning of June, two further Enforcement Notices were issued and
served against the other unauthorised building (to the right hand side of the
access, 11/00058/BOC ‘A’) and against the mixed use of the site for agriculture,
the storage and retail of imported goods and the storage and distribution of skips
(11/00058/BOC ‘B’).
A retrospective planning application (ref: 12/00707/FUL) was received for notice
building 11/00058/BOC (building to the left hand side of the access) on the 12th
June 2012. It was declined, however, for determination under S123 70C (1) and
(2) of the Localism Act 2011. Later in June, the Planning Inspectorate confirmed
that the appeals have been withdrawn against the notice 11/00058/BOC (building
to the left hand side of the access).
On the 9th July, a retrospective planning application was received for the
continued use of farm shop and courtyard for the display for sale and sale of
agricultural, equine and pet associated goods and food (application ref:
12/00616/FUL).
At the beginning of August, the Planning Inspectorate confirmed that they have
not received appeals against the Enforcement Notices for 11/00058/BOC ‘A’ and
11/00058/BOC ‘B’. The time period to appeal against the notices has expired.
CONSULTATIONS
Werrington Parish Council: Comments awaited.
Local Highway Authority: Object due to insufficient / conflicting information
(building). Also, the farm shop fails to make adequate provision for the: turning of
vehicles within the site curtilage; parking of vehicles within the site curtilage and
manoeuvring and parking of delivery vehicles within the site curtilage resulting in
an increase in the likelihood of highway danger due to drivers having to
manoeuvre into the A520 Leek Road.
Environmental Health Manager: No objections subject to conditions (buildings).
Comments are awaited in respect of the proposed retail unit.
11.6
AGENDA ITEM 11
Planning Policy Officer: Summary (agricultural building): it is stated that Local
Plan Policy E4 is the key policy. It is questioned whether the applicant can
demonstrate an agricultural need in this location and also whether the building
needs to be so high and extensive. It is also stated that there may also be other
issues such as modern welfare standards for keeping animals in buildings
requiring modernisation of buildings. Rural intrusion should be minimised and
therefore it is questioned whether there are any vacant buildings on site already
that would obviate the need for all of the floorspace applied for. Although the
applicant has referenced siting, it is queried whether an alternate siting on the
farm would be better from a landscape impact point of view. The support for
“sustainable growth” of rural businesses under para 28 NPPF is referred to. For
clarification, the proposal is not contrary to Green Belt Policy under NPPF para
89 and Local Plan Policy N2(2). Potential grounds of refusal may relate to Local
Plan Policies E4 / B13 / N7 and also Core Strategy Policies R1 / DC1 / DC3 and
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ‘Conservation’ section para 109
or the ‘Design’ section para 65.
(Shop) Although the site is within the Green Belt, the proposal will not involve any
additional built development and is part of a complex of farm buildings. In this
respect it will not therefore have any greater impact on the openness or purposes
of the Green Belt. The NPPF supports the growth and expansion of business
and enterprise in rural areas and also promotes the diversification of agricultural
businesses. Saved Local Plan policy E3 generally supports alternative uses for
agricultural buildings provided they will diversify the rural economy and
encourage rural enterprise. Furthermore, emerging Core strategy Policy R1 also
supports sustainable rural diversification and economic activity in the rural areas.
Notwithstanding the broad support for rural diversification, the key policy issue is
whether the proposed use is appropriate for a rural location. Whilst the sale of
agricultural and equine goods / foods would be appropriate to a rural areas, there
are concerns over the sale of other pet associated goods and food which would
be more appropriate to an urban location. In this respect, there needs to be
some clarification on the proportion and scale of sales, which would relate to this
element of the farm shop. If it represents a significant element of the total sales
then from a policy point of view, this would not be considered to be an
appropriate form of rural diversification as it would be meeting retail needs which
would be more sustainably met in an urban area.
Independent Agricultural Consultant: In summary. With the exception of the farm
shop, all the buildings are in use for agricultural purposes. However, a part of
‘Building 2’ is used for storing hay for sale. Of note, there is a larger than
average range of farm machinery and harvesting equipment than usually found
on a livestock farm of this size, but this does enable timely harvesting to take
place without reliance on contractors. Also, the stock sheds are empty, which is
11.7
AGENDA ITEM 11
usual for this time of year, with all the stock out grazing and are housed normally
from October / November until turnout in April / May.
REPRESENTATIONS
Expiry of:Site Notice – 7th August 2012 & 7th September 2012.
Press Notice - n/a
A single neighbour has been notified. No letters of representation have been
received.
POLICIES
National Planning Policy Framework (April 2012)
Paragraphs 1 – 17
Section 3
Supporting a prosperous rural economy
Section 7
Requiring good design
Section 9
Protecting Green Belt land
Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan
D5A
Green Belt
D5B
Green Belt
NC1
Protection of the Countryside
NC2
Landscape Protection and Restoration
D2
Design and Environmental Quality of Development
D4
Managing Change in Rural Areas
T13
Transport
Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan “Saved Policies”
N2 / N7
Green Belt
N8 / N9
Special Landscape Area
B13
Design & Amenity
B21
Conversion of Rural Buildings
E3
Agricultural Diversification
E4
Agricultural Development
T14
Transport
Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Revised Submission Document)
SO2
Sustainable Development
SD1
Achieving Sustainable Development
SS1
Development Principles
SO8
Design and Conservation Policies - Spatial Objectives
11.8
AGENDA ITEM 11
SO9
DC1
DC3
R1
Design and Conservation Policies - Spatial Objectives
Design Considerations
Landscape and Settlement Setting
Rural Diversification
OFFICER COMMENT
1. Application ref. 12/00522/FUL site seeks retrospective consent for the
retention of a replacement general purpose agricultural building.
Whilst
application ref. 12/00616/FUL concerns the ‘continued’ use of a single storey
brick and tile building, its forecourt, parking and access as a farm shop. The
application site ‘Thornfields Farm’, Cellarhead is located within the Green Belt
and Special Landscape Area. Consequently, the main issues to consider are the
principle of development, followed by any visual harm to the Green Belt,
preserving the intrinsic qualities of the Special Landscape Area (SLA) and
highway safety.
Principle
2. NPPF, Section 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’ at para 79 states that: “The
Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of
Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open;
the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their
permanence”. Furthermore, para 81 outlines: “once Green Belts have been
defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial
use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities … to retain and enhance
landscapes, visual amenity … or to improve damaged and derelict land”. The
guidance states that a “local planning authority should regard the construction of
new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: …
buildings for agriculture and forestry … ” (para 89). Additionally, the guidance
outlines that “Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in
Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not
conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are: … the reuse of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial
construction … “ (para 90).
Agricultural Justification
3. The proposal is not contrary to Green Belt Policy under NPPF para 89 and
Local Plan Policy N2(2) provided that the applicant can demonstrate an
agricultural need in relation to the building’s scale and location. Also, Local Plan
Policy E4 states that proposals for agricultural development will be assessed
against the agricultural need for the development in that location. Furthermore,
the NPPF also supports the growth and expansion of business and enterprise in
rural areas and also promotes the diversification of agricultural businesses.
11.9
AGENDA ITEM 11
4. The Council’s Independent Agricultural Consultant has noted that a part of
‘Building 2’ (ref. 12/00522/FUL) was used for storing ‘hay for sale’. He was
informed by the applicant that an additional area of land is rented for hay
cropping and there were two part bays of small (conventional) bales of hay and
two part bays of large round baled hay in the subject building close to the road
and farmyard entrance. Fundamentally, it was stated that the small hay bales
are mainly ‘retail’ and ‘sold’ from the farm, with a few being used for sheep feed
and the remaining large round bales of hay, together with the silage, all used for
winter stock feed on the farm. Of note, there was a ‘larger’ than average range of
farm machinery and harvesting equipment than usually found on a livestock farm
of this size, but this would enable timely harvesting to take place without reliance
on contractors.
5. The applicant’s submitted Agricultural Statement outlines that the “farm shop
sells more forage than can be produced on the farm so additional hay is
purchased to ensure enough is in store to meet consumer demand”.
Fundamentally, the statement concedes that “3,000 conventional bales of hay
are purchased each year as are 3,000 conventional and 80 tonnes of big square
bales and round bales of wheat straw”. It also states that a large proportion of
this straw is used on the farm for bedding and feeding the cattle and bedding the
sheep”. Notably, the Council’s Enforcement Officer’s evidence (as set out
above), serves to show that up until recently both of the unauthorised buildings to
either side of the access were being used to store ‘imported’ retail goods for sale.
6. Firstly, it is considered unlikely that conventional bales are used on the farm
given that farmers tend to use large ‘round bales’ due to economies of scale. It is
clear therefore that a significant element of the agricultural building is being
utilised for the storage of ‘imported’ small (conventional) bales of hay / straw for
sale. Potentially, the ‘general agricultural building’ is being used to store some
6,000 bales of ‘imported’ hay / straw for sale. The proposal is in a mixed rather
than purely agricultural use and for this reason it fails to satisfy Green Belt and
other countryside policy. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Green Belt
Policy under NPPF para 89 and Local Plan Policy N2(2) as the applicant has not
demonstrated an agricultural need in relation to the building’s scale and location.
Also, Local Plan Policy E4 which requires proposals for agricultural development
to be assessed against the agricultural need for the development in that location.
7. The replacement agricultural building replaced a group of three traditional
buildings of a more modest and vernacular form. The proposal’s significant scale
and form, particularly with reference to its overall height of 8.4m and overly
dominant gable raises significant concerns in respect of Green Belt openness
and therefore is considered inappropriate in these respects. Furthermore, the
applicant has not identified any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm
by reason of inappropriateness and other harm to the Green Belt. A reason for
refusal is therefore proposed in these respects.
11.10
AGENDA ITEM 11
8. The retail proposal would not involve any additional built development and is
part of a complex of farm buildings. In these respects it would not have any
greater impact on the openness or purposes of the Green Belt. The storage of
goods however to the shop’s forecourt would serve to reduce openness whilst
raising visual concerns as set out below.
Farm Shop
9. Although the site is within the Green Belt, the proposal will not involve any
additional built development and is part of a complex of farm buildings. In this
respect it will not therefore have any greater impact on the openness or purposes
of the Green Belt. The NPPF supports the growth and expansion of business
and enterprise in rural areas and also promotes the diversification of agricultural
businesses. Saved Local Plan Policy E3 generally supports alternative uses for
agricultural buildings provided they will diversify the rural economy and
encourage rural enterprise. Furthermore, emerging Core strategy Policy R1 also
supports sustainable rural diversification and economic activity in the rural areas.
10. Notwithstanding the broad support for rural diversification, the key policy
issue is whether the proposed use is appropriate for a rural location. Whilst the
sale of agricultural and equine goods / foods would be appropriate to a rural area,
there are concerns over the sale of other pet associated goods and food which
would be more appropriate to an urban location. In this respect, the proposal is
not clear concerning the exact proportion and scale of sales, which would relate
to this element of the farm shop. It appears however that a notable element of
the farm shop is dedicated to the sale of pet shop type items and therefore from a
principle perspective, the inclusion of such goods for sale would not be an
appropriate form of rural diversification as it would be meeting retail needs which
would be more sustainably met in an urban area. A second reason for refusal is
proposed in these respects.
Visual Harm
11. In respect of the NPPF ‘Core planning principles’, para 17 discusses a set of
twelve core land-use planning principles including: “ … take account of the
different roles and character of different areas … protecting the Green Belts
around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside …
“. Furthermore, Section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’
para 109 states that the “planning system should contribute to and enhance the
natural and local environment by: … protecting and enhancing valued
landscapes … “. This landscape is protected by saved policies N8 and N9 of the
Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (1998) and NC2 in the Staffordshire
and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (2002). It is considered that particular care is
needed to avoid harmful intrusion into the landscape by unnecessary and
unsightly buildings. Furthermore saved policies require agricultural development
11.11
AGENDA ITEM 11
to harmonise with and be appropriate to its surroundings (E4 in the Local Plan
and D4 in the Structure Plan).
12. At NPPF Para 64 discusses that “Permission should be refused for
development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for
improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.
Additionally, a high quality of design, which improves the character of an area, is
expected in accordance with Saved Policy B13 of the Local Plan.
13. Notably, the subject building is located in a generally open and prominent
roadside location whereby the existing buildings are more in scale and character
with the landscape. The consideration of development plan policy indicates that
a building of the size and prominence proposed within this landscape context
should be assessed in relation to agricultural need in that location. Given the
landscape sensitivities it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to be
persuaded that the need would outweigh the adverse impact on the landscape.
Consequently, it is considered that the proposal does not seek to demonstrate an
agricultural need for a building of this significant scale. Even in the event that an
agricultural need could be demonstrated, Officers still have concerns regarding
the visual impact of the proposed development in view of its prominent and
exposed roadside position.
14. Overall, the building's conspicuous positioning and significant scale would be
unduly prominent within its setting when viewed from the Leek Road and the
wider countryside setting thereby detracting from the openness of the Green Belt
and would appear out of character within this sensitive context thereby injuring
the visual amenities of the Green Belt and also the character and appearance of
the Special Landscape Area. It would be possible to secure the implementation
of a modest landscaping scheme to the road frontage, but such schemes should
not be used to justify an otherwise unacceptable development. Landscaping
should be used to enhance the appearance of a development and anchor it into
the landscape. Even when planting was established, the building would remain
visually intrusive and on these grounds the proposal is considered to fail. For
these reasons, a further reason for refusal is proposed.
Highway Safety
15. In respect of the proposal for the retention of the agricultural building, the
Local Highway Authority has raised significant highway safety issues concerning
insufficient and conflicting information. In detail, it is commented that the
proposal should refer to all of the current uses of the site. In relation to the shop,
there are no details of this use or of its parking and turning areas. Also, empty
skips are stacked suggesting a possible additional use. It is further stated that
the application concentrates on Building A (ref. 12/00522/FUL – the replacement
agricultural building), but building B is also a replacement building and this is
constructed significantly closer to Building D (ref. 12/00616/FUL – the farm shop)
11.12
AGENDA ITEM 11
than the original building therefore restricting movement within the site. The
Officer states that the usage of the site as such and movement within the yard is
so restricted that vehicles are parking on the verge therefore severely reducing
visibility.
Furthermore, the geometry of the access is inadequate for a
commercial use beyond the original farm use and for any additional use therefore
the access will need to be widened. Also, the farm shop fails to make adequate
provision for the: turning of vehicles within the site curtilage; parking of vehicles
within the site curtilage and manoeuvring and parking of delivery vehicles within
the site curtilage resulting in an increase in the likelihood of highway danger due
to drivers having to manoeuvre into the A520 Leek Road. Consequently, the
proposed retention of the agricultural building raises significant highway safety
concerns and an additional reason for refusal is proposed in these respects.
Conclusion
16. In conclusion, the proposals raise significant Green Belt, landscape
character and highways concerns and both the building and farm shop therefore
are recommended for refusal as detailed below.
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION No.1
12/00522/FUL
Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:1. The policies taken into account are Saved Policies: N2, N7, N8, N9, B13 and
E4 of the Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan; Policies SO2, SD1 and
R1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Revised Submission
Document) Saved Policies: D5A, D5B, NC1, NC2, D2, D4 and the related
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning for Landscape Change of the
Adopted Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan together with the
national planning policy advice given in the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF), including but not exclusively Section 3 ‘Supporting a prosperous rural
economy’, Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’, Section 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt
land and Section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.
Notably, the subject building is located in a generally open and prominent
roadside location whereby the existing buildings are more in scale and character
with the landscape. Evidently, the ‘mixed use’ of the agricultural building does
not seek to demonstrate an agricultural need for a building of this significant
scale. Given the landscape sensitivities it is considered that there is insufficient
evidence to be persuaded that the need would outweigh the adverse impact on
the landscape.
Even in the event that an agricultural need could be
demonstrated, the proposed development remains visually intrusive in view of its
prominent and exposed roadside position. Furthermore, the agricultural building
replaced traditional buildings of a more modest and vernacular form. The
11.13
AGENDA ITEM 11
proposal’s significant scale and form, particularly with reference to its overall
height of 8.4m and overly dominant gable raises significant concerns in respect
of Green Belt openness and therefore is considered inappropriate in these
respects. Overall, the building's conspicuous positioning and significant scale
would be unduly prominent within its setting when viewed from the Leek Road
and the wider countryside setting thereby detracting from the openness of the
Green Belt and would appear out of character within this sensitive context
thereby injuring the visual amenities of the Green Belt and also the character and
appearance of the Special Landscape Area. Consequently, the proposal would
not harmonise with its surroundings thereby resulting in a harmful effect on the
character of this attractive and protected rural area. Furthermore, the applicant
has not forwarded any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm by
reason of inappropriateness and other harm to the Green Belt. Accordingly, the
proposal is contrary to those national and local policies detailed above.
2. The proposed development for the retention of the agricultural building fails to
make adequate provision for the parking and turning of vehicles / manoeuvring
and parking of delivery vehicles related to the use of the shop within the site
curtilage thereby resulting in an increase in the likelihood of highway danger due
to drivers having to manoeuvre into the A520 Leek Road contrary therefore to
Policy T13 of the Adopted Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan.
11.14
AGENDA ITEM 11
11.15
AGENDA ITEM 11
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION No. 2
Subject to no new or substantive representations being received prior to the
expiry of the publicity period on 7 September 2012, planning permission be
refused for the following reasons:12/00616/FUL
1. The proposal is not clear concerning the exact proportion and scale of pet
shop type sales as an overall element of the farm shop. It appears however that
a notable area of the farm shop is dedicated to the sale of pet shop type items
and therefore from a principle perspective, the inclusion of such goods for sale
would not be an appropriate form of rural diversification as it would be meeting
retail needs which would be more sustainably met in an urban area.
Consequently, it is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to
demonstrate a need for the proposed use within this more rural location.
Accordingly, the proposal is considered contrary to the requirements of Adopted
Local Plan Saved Policies N2, B21 and E4; Policies SO2, SD1 and R1 of the
Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Revised Submission Document),
and, the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, including but not exclusively
Section 3 ‘Supporting a prosperous rural economy’ and Section 9 ‘Protecting
Green Belt land.
11.16
AGENDA ITEM 11
2. The farm shop proposal fails to make adequate provision for the turning of
vehicles / parking of vehicles / manoeuvring and parking of delivery vehicles
within the site curtilage thereby resulting in an increase in the likelihood of
highway danger due to drivers having to manoeuvre into the A520 Leek Road,
contrary therefore to Policy T13 of the Adopted Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Structure Plan.
Informative(s)
Local Highway Authority: This recommendation of refusal will not prejudice
consideration of a further application at a later date which includes: Clearly
signed and delineated parking and turning area for customers vehicles; turning
area and dedicated loading area for delivery vehicles; details of access routes of
adequate width into and internally within the site and measures to prevent
parking on the verge on the frontage of Thornfields farm to avoid impeding
visibility.
11.17