1.
Site Description
1.1
The application site comprises a retail premises with attached café and parking /
services area. The types of goods that can be sold by the retail operation are
restricted by condition (see planning ref. 5/68/78/F). The site was once occupied by
a service station, but this has been demolished and a new purpose built building
erected for the retail and café operation. The buildings on the site have been
sensitively designed to resemble a small complex of traditional stone built barns.
1.2
The site is located on the southern side of the A65 to the west of Ingleton. The site is
outside the recognised development limits for Ingleton (and indeed any other
settlement) and is therefore classed as open countryside by the adopted Local Plan.
The site also falls within the boundaries of the special landscape area.
2.
Proposal
2.1
The application proposes an extension to the existing building approximately 15 m by
13 m in size. The extension will provide additional retail space (approximately 185
m2). The extension is to be completed in natural stone and Westmoreland slate to
match the existing building. The extension has been designed to resemble a further
former agricultural building.
3.
Planning History
3.1
5/68/78. Part conversion & extension of service station to form restaurant and
dwelling. Approved 1985.
3.2
5/68/78/A. Change of use of service station to caravan site. Refused 1985.
3.3
5/68/78/B. Erection of two dwellings at service station. Refused 1987.
3.4
5/68/78/C. Siting of 3 caravans for a temporary period of 6 months at service station.
Refused 1987.
3.5
5/68/78/D. Redevelopment of service station to include new showrooms, motorists
shop, workshops, offices and dwelling. Approved 1988.
3.6
5/68/78/E. Extension and part conversion of service station to form motorists shop
and dwelling. Approved 1989.
3.7
5/68/78/F. Demolition of existing vacant garage and erection of one storey shop
selling farm produce and other ancillary items. Approved 1997. Conditions on this
approval state that not less than 50% of the floorspace is to be used for the sale of
agricultural produce received direct from the farm or received following minimal
processing necessary to render the produce suitable for retailing. Not less than 25%
be used for the sale of ancillary food items and not more than 25% be used for the
display and sale of craft items.
3.8
5/68/78/H. Proposed removal of the restrictive conditions on the premises that
control the goods sold. The application was refused in 1998 as the site was in the
open countryside and the scheme would not have been permitted without the
imposition of the restrictive conditions. There was not considered to be any change
in circumstances that would direct the Council to a different conclusion on this matter.
3.9
5/68/78/J. Construction of extension to form café/ restaurant and kitchen with
storage over. Approved July 1998.
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
Local Plan policy of relevance comprises ENV1, ENV2, ENV4, EMP10, R1, R2, R9,
T2 and T3.
4.2
Central Government policy of relevance is contained within PPS6 and PPS7.
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
Thornton-in-Lonsdale Parish Council have stated they have no objection and that
Country Harvest has been an asset to the community and the proposal is fine
architecturally.
6.
Consultations
6.1
The Highways Agency has raised no objections.
6.2
The Highway Authority has requested more information and has asked for details on
the number of covers in the café restaurant, the amount of office space, and the
amount of retail space. In the absence of this information the Highway Authority
recommend refusal of the application. The Highway Authority has also stated that
car parking spaces need to be marked on site to include disabled parking and that
due to substandard sight lines on the south eastern access ‘no exit’ signs should be
erected to discourage vehicles from using it.
7.
Representations
7.1
None.
8.
Summary of Principal Planning Issues
8.1
The key planning issues are considered to be the principle of new retail development
in this location, the impact on the special landscape area, and highway issues.
9.
Analysis
9.1
The application proposes 185 m2 of new retail floorspace. The application forms
indicate that presently there is 239 m2 of floorspace and this figure seems
reasonable accurate. The proposed extension therefore roughly equates to a 75%
increase in floor area. Guidance within PPS6 advises that LPA's should support
development that enhances the vitality and viability of market towns and other rural
service centres (Para 2.61). With respect to Farm Shops Para 2.63 states that they
‘can meet a demand for local produce in a sustainable way and can contribute to the
rural economy. Care should however be taken to ensure that they do not adversely
affect easily accessible convenience shopping available to the local community’
9.2
Paragraph 3.29 of PPS6 relates to extensions to existing developments. It states
that ‘applications for the extension of existing development in edge-of-centre and outof-centre locations may raise specific issues. The impact on existing town centres of
the proposed extension should be given particular weight, especially if new and
additional classes of goods or services for sale are proposed. In addition, where
establishing need is concerned, local planning authorities should establish that the
evidence presented on the need for further floorspace relates specifically to the class
of goods proposed to be sold.’
9.3
PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas is also of particular relevance to this
application. Paragraph 1(iv) states that ‘new building development in the open
countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for
development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government's
overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and
beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural
resources and so it may be enjoyed by all’.
9.4
With respect to tourism and Leisure developments paragraph 34 of PPS7 advises
that LPA should provide: - ‘(i) support, through planning policies, sustainable rural
tourism and leisure developments that benefit rural businesses, communities and
visitors and which utilise and enrich, but do not harm, the character of the
countryside, its towns, villages, buildings and other features; and (iii) ensure that any
plan proposals for large-scale tourism and leisure developments in rural areas have
been subject to close assessment to weigh-up their advantages and disadvantages
to the locality in terms of sustainable development objectives.’
9.5
Several policies within the Local Plan are also of relevance, although it is important to
note the Local Plan was adopted a considerable time before these PPSs' were
published. Policies in the Local Plan on both tourist development and retail
development are of relevance as the application involves retail development, but it is
envisaged that a considerable amount of trade is tourist trade. Policy EMP10 offers
general support to new tourist development subject to detailed criteria. Policy R1
sets out a sequential approach for new retail development and specifically outlines
that new retail development outside the development limits will not be permitted.
However Policy R9 offers support for retailing in the countryside in some
circumstances. Policy R2 is also of relevance to new retail development proposals.
9.6
The application proposes a sizeable extension to an existing retail use. No
supporting evidence has been submitted to accompany the application to explain the
reasons or need for the proposal. The application premises are a popular destination
for visitors to the area and many goods sold are aimed towards this market. The
premises also sell other produce such as farm shop goods that local residents may
also purchase. In the absence of information to indicate otherwise, it is considered
that the scale of proposed expansion of the existing retail activities in this out of
centre and open countryside location will have a detrimental impact on the viability
and vitality of existing retail centres. Such a proposal would therefore be contrary to
the planning policy for assessing retail development contained within PPS6 and the
Local Plan.
9.7
The extension to the property is also considered to result in a retail / tourist
development of such a scale that it would be contrary to PPS7 which seeks to direct
such new development to sustainable locations (such as existing village centres).
Given the resulting scale of development it is also considered that the proposal would
be contrary to the requirements of policy ENV1 of the Local Plan (Development in the
open countryside).
9.8
In reaching this decision it is recognised that a more relaxed stance is taken in
planning policy towards farm shops and farm diversification (Policy R9 and policy
within PPS6 & 7). However, the application premises is already of a reasonable size
(particularly given its out of town location) and further expansion of the business may
cause harm to the viability and vitality of the core retail area in Ingleton village. It
should be noted that whilst it is limited to selling a proportion of farm derived goods a
significant proportion of goods sold at present are not restricted. The proposal is also
not farm diversification that has taken place to help support the viability of an existing
farm enterprise. The site originated from the redevelopment of a service station and
is a significant business in its own right rather than the diversification of an
agricultural enterprise. Consideration has been given as to whether the imposition of
further conditions would ensure that the proposal is acceptable. However, it is
considered that the extent of additional retail space that would result together with
the location of premises means that compliance with retail planning policy could not
be achieved.
9.9
Whilst the Highways Agency has raised no objections the Highway Authority has
requested more information to enable them to reach a decision. This information has
not been received and in the absence of such information the Highways Authority
has request refusal. It is therefore recommended that the absence of additional
highway safety information to enable the Highways Authority to assess the
application is a reason for refusal.
9.10
In terms of the visual merits of the proposal and impact on the special landscape
area, the development is to be sensitively designed and therefore the application is
considered to be acceptable in this respect. The scheme is considered to accord
with Local Plan Policy and other relevant planning issues in all other respects.
10.
Recommendation
10.1
Refuse Planning Permission.
11.
Reason for refusal
11.1
It is considered that the proposed expansion of the existing retail activities in this out
of retail centre and open countryside location will have a detrimental impact on the
viability and vitality of existing nearby retail centres. Additionally, the proposal whilst
restricted to selling a certain proportion of agricultural produce is not considered to be
a farm diversification operation. Such a proposal is therefore contrary to planning
policy for assessing retail development contained within PPS6 and the Adopted
Craven District (Outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park) Local Plan (Policies R1,
R2 & R9).
11.2
The extension to the property is considered to result in retail / tourist development of
such a scale that it would be contrary to PPS7 which seeks to direct such new
development to sustainable locations (such as existing village centres). Given the
resulting scale of development it is also considered that the proposal would be in
principal contrary to the requirements of policy ENV1 of the Local Plan (Development
in the open countryside).
11.3
Further detailed information on the development proposal has been requested by the
Highways Authority to enable them to assess the merits of the application. This
additional information has not been supplied and in the absence of it the Highways
Authority have recommended refusal. The Local Planning Authority is therefore not
satisfied that the scheme is acceptable with respect to Highway Safety and the
application is therefore contrary to the requirements of policies T2, EMP10, R2 and
R9 of the Local Plan.