Meeting documents

Application Proposal: Erect security building and staff parking area. Erect perimeter security fencing all in association with the storage of motor vehicles. Change of use of the land from B2 to B8 use.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained that since the report had been published, he thought it appropriate to add an additional condition to ensure that no washing or valeting of vehicles occurred until a drainage system had been installed and agreed.

He provided details of further updates to the application. Two letters had been received from LMR Planning Law, which had been circulated to members. The letters argue that there is inadequate detail contained within the application to determine the application and that the officer report lacked detail in key areas such as the principle of development, drainage and highways. Three further letters of objection had also been received, which raised further concern over highway safety.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, The Planning Officer provided maps, plans and photographs to show the area and the application proposal. He further provided plans to show a scheme adjoining the site which had recently been granted planning permission, however had not yet been implemented.

He advised members that in 2008, an established use of B2 was agreed by way of a certificate of lawfulness application. He suggested that a B8 use would have less impact on residents than the already permitted B2 use. His recommendation, as detailed in the report, was that the application be approved subject to the conditions, to include an additional drainage condition.

Mr T Evans, representing Lydford on Fosse Parish Council, addressed the committee. He explained to members that proposal detailed excessive opening times, would create pollution and offered limited employment for the community. He explained that he had concern over the traffic and the impact on the road network. He pointed out that there was little detail contained within the application in relation to number of vehicles to be stored on the site and the traffic movements to and from the site; however he thought that this would be considerably higher than with the current use at the site. He advised members that 20% of the traffic which uses the B3135 is a HGV.

Mr C Edwards, representing Ansford Parish Council, addressed members. He explained that he had grave concerns over the road network and the access to the site which would be used by large transporter vehicles. He explained that the road is unsuitable for HGV’s and that some areas of the road narrowed to single track in some areas, which results in delays and dangerous situations, and this increase in traffic would make the situation worse.

Ms P Peppin, representing Castle Cary Town Council, addressed the Committee. She explained that the Town Council had concerns over the road network and the increased traffic. She advised that it was wrong to compare this application to a similar application in Henstridge as that site was situated next to an A road and not a B road. She explained that if the vehicle transporter vehicles were taller than 4.5m high, then they would be unable to go west on the B3153 and would all have to go through the village of Clanville. She further pointed out that there were no staff facilities included within the proposal, no drainage details, only two members of staff to be employed and that the opening hours were too long.

Ms V Nobles, Ms B Britz, Mr A Gibbons, Mr Knight and Mr Kay addressed the Committee. Their comments included;

·         There is a lack of highways information provided.

·         The opinions and decisions of planning inspectors have been ignored. Two planning appeals have been refused for highway reasons.

·         A building would be needed for staff and for storage and this has not been shown on the plans.

·         A business plan should have been provided.

·         The opening hours are too long.

·         Only 2 jobs will be created.

·         The additional traffic will make the road dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists as there is no footpath. There is also a nursing home close to the road.

·         There will be an increase in traffic from the waste transfer station which has already been approved. The road cannot take further traffic.

·         HGV’s cause damage to verges, walls and property. 30% of traffic which goes through Clanville is a HGV.

·         The access to the site has a concrete road, can this be extended to reduce the amount of dust created from the site?

·         There is a lack of information in the report and some errors.

Mr P Dance, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He advised members that, in his opinion, a B8 storage use would be better for the local residents and that a good balance would have been found, which was supported by the SCC Highways Department. He clarified that a vehicle transporter could carry 11 vehicles. He further pointed out a water treatment plant had been proposed in the previous application for an industrial unit.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward Member, expressed his concern that additional traffic would be using B3153 when the waste transfer station has begun operating from Dimmer. He agreed that the road through Clanville was tight and over-used. He hoped that the application would be refused.

Councillor Nick Weeks, also Ward Member, agreed with the comments of Councillor Hobhouse. His view was that this application would make the already unbearable issues significantly worse. He advised that he couldn’t offer his support to this application.

During the discussion, members commented that this application was inappropriate for a rural area and that lighting and security was a concern. It was further commented that the small amount of employment offered little benefit to the community.

Members further commented that the highway was unsafe for pedestrians and motorists. It was further commented that this site cannot be compared to a similar scheme in Henstridge.

The Area Lead (North/East) pointed out to members that the site had not been included within the current local plan with a specified use and that the 2008 certificate of lawfulness, to confirm B2 use, remained unchallenged.

He further advised that the highway issues were not the responsibility of the developer/land owner, however acknowledged that the application would result in a considerable increase in traffic. He clarified that previous inspector decisions took the view that in previous applications it had not been shown that traffic could be safely accommodated, rather than that road was unsafe.

One member pointed out that as the site was included within the SSDC Local Plan; it was unfair on the land owner/developer that possibilities for the site were not clear. Members agreed that the Planning Policy team should provide support to the land owner to consider and confirm possible future uses for the site.  It was agreed that this concern would be raised with the Planning Policy team for them to consider possible future uses of the site in the local plan review.

Councillor Anna Groskop, suggested that an informative be added to the refusal to highlight the concern over the cumulative effect of traffic for this site due to the approval of many homes in Castle Cary and the approval of the waste transfer station. She further suggested that the certificate of lawfulness application which agreed a B2 use of the site was now inappropriate and not suitable. However, the Area Lead (North/East) felt that this would be unreasonable to add as an informative to a refusal.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation, as the submitted supporting information lacks a thorough and detailed assessment of the likely levels of traffic that would be generated by the proposed use. Without such information it has not been demonstrated that the additional traffic could be safely accommodated on the B3153 between Ansford Bridge and Lydford Cross without detriment and safety to the residential amenities of occupiers of properties adjacent to the road and road users. As such the proposal is contrary to policies EQ2 and TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 5 votes in support, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/01064/FUL be refused, contrary to the officers recommendation for the following reason;

01.          The submitted supporting information lacks a thorough and detailed assessment of the likely levels of traffic that would be generated by the proposed use. Without such information it has not been demonstrated that the additional traffic could be safely accommodated on the B3153 between Ansford Bridge and Lydford Cross without detriment to the residential amenities of occupiers of properties adjacent to the road. As such the proposal is contrary to policies EQ2 and TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: 5 votes in support, 2 against and 2 abstentions)