Agenda item

DA/2021/0344 STAVERTON – Proposed change of use of existing buildings to use Class E (commercial, business and service) to allow for any of the following uses (A) retail sale of goods; (B) sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises; (C) (I) financial services; (II) professional services; (III) any other services which it is appropriate to provide in a commercial, business or service locality; (D) indoor sport, recreation or fitness to visiting members of the public; (E) provision of medical or health services; (F) a crèche, day nursery or day centre; (G) (I) an office, (II) research and development or (III) any industrial process, being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit) and to include expansion of existing lake for leisure fishing and construction of new car park with associated landscaping works all to be accessed off existing entrance from A428 – Staverton Hill Farm, Badby Lane

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and planning history of the site. Many of the trees around the site were protected. Policies were in place to support rural enterprises. The application sought to double the size of the fishing lake, which was not readily visible from the surrounding areas. Residents were concerned with the impact of the car park as well as the potential uses of the site. Class E had a wide range of uses, many of which were acceptable in a residential area but some could cause concern during unsociable hours.

Environmental Health has suggested conditions restricting use from 8am until 8pm Monday to Friday, and 8am until 4pm on Saturdays with no use on Sundays and bank holidays. Deliveries would also be subject to the same time restrictions. On balance, officers recommended approval.

Mrs Simpson spoke against the application, and the Chair used his discretion to allow Mr McGibbin to speak on behalf of the Parish Council.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Inspectors report did not refer to the scale and physical impact of the carpark or its impact on the Special Landscape Area (SLA), although reference was made to the use of the carpark and buildings during antisocial hours, hence the proposed conditions to mitigate this aspect.

Councillor Peter Matten considered that the Inspector was concerned about the carpark if he had expressed concerns over its use. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Inspector’s comments referred to different elements of the carpark. Concerns were not regarding the physical construction of the carpark but rather its use.

Councillor David Smith supported the Parish Council and residents. The site would have a detrimental effect on residents. Class E was a very broad use class which could result in noise and disturbance. There would also be a cumulative effect of many different businesses operating from the site. Any use after 5pm/5.30pm was not appropriate. The application should be refused and should the applicants choose to appeal, the Inspector could make his views known.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the types of business that could operate under Class E were outlined in the report. Although the condition suggested 8pm as the time to stop use on site, many businesses may choose not to operate that late. There was currently no end user identified.

Councillor Rupert Frost proposed that the application be refused for numerous reasons including unsustainability, failure to enhance or protect the rural area and the use being inappropriate to the location. He noted that although officers felt that the car park would not have a harmful impact on the landscape, its construction would have an adverse impact on biodiversity by loss of habitats and this should be included in the reasons.  The proposal contradicted several policies of the Local Planning Policy Part 1 and Part 2.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that the buildings were already in existence and consideration must be given to the Inspectors report. The impact on the SLA would be difficult to prove on appeal, residential impact on amenity might be more successful and whilst the construction of the car park would result in some loss there was no evidence that there would be no net gain due to the extension of the proposed fishing lake.

Councillor Phil Bignell considered that the application should be refused due to its impact on the residential amenity of the local residents.

Councillor Rupert Frost proposed that the application should still be refused with focus to the proposal’s effect on the amenity of local residents and the vagueness of uses under Class E. The proposition was seconded by Councillor Phil Bignell.

Councillor Wendy Randall was content with the increased size of the fishing lake and noted that the access was onto the main road which was quite busy.

Councillor Peter Matten was concerned about oversimplifying the situation by narrowing down the reasons for refusal. The Principal Planning Officer advised that it was important to clarify reasons as Officers may need to defend them at appeal. The buildings had been approved under a previous application and deemed acceptable. The prime concern for residents and the Parish Council appeared to be the potential noise and disturbance that could be caused by the use of the buildings.

Councillor Daniel Cribbin considered that Councillor Bignell’s proposal was sensible. A focused reason for refusal would be preferable.

In discussions with Councillor Phil Bignell, Councillor Rupert Frost agreed to include paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to the reasons for refusal.

The Council’s Legal Advisor urged caution and stressed that the grounds for refusal must be very clear. The applicant can then decide whether to appeal or submit another application.

Councillor Rupert Frost indicated that the application should be refused adding the NPPF paragraph 180 and the effect of any proposed use on the amenity of local residents, referring to the noise and disturbance detailed in the Inspectors report.

On being put to the meeting, the proposition to refuse the application was put to the meeting and declared carried with 5 voting in favour and, 3 against.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

The Local Planning Authority considers that given the location of the complex relative to nearby residential properties and in a tranquil open countryside setting, the proposal for use of the buildings for Use Class E would represent an inappropriate range of uses which would adversely impact upon the amenities the occupants of nearby residential properties presently enjoy by reason of noise and general disturbance that is likely to result from comings and goings associated with such uses. Furthermore the proposed car park would not lead to an enhancement of biodiversity on site. Accordingly the LPA considers the proposal would be contrary to the provisions policies SA, S1, S10, R2, E7 and BN2 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) and Policies SP1 G&H, RA6, ENV1, ENV2 and ENV10 viii of the Settlements and Countryside Local Plan (Part 2) For Daventry District and having regard to NPPF 180 (5-3).