Agenda item

Change of use to storage facility to be used for container, boat and caravan storage

Land North East Of Chathill Station, Chathill, Northumberland

Change of use to storage facility to be used for container, boat and caravan storage.

J Sharp, Planning Officer, introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation.  The following updates were provided:

•             Two additional letters of support had been received from potential users of the site and therefore there had now been 6 letters of support.

•             Reference had been made to Chathill Parish Council in the introduction of the report and this should have actually stated Ellingham.

A written statement provided by Ellingham Parish Council was read out to the Committee by L. Little, Senior Democratic Services Officer and would be filed with the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

A written statement provided by the applicant in support of the application was read out to the Committee by V. Cartmell, Planning Area Manager - Development Management and would be filed with the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

The Director of Planning provided clarification on a number of issues such as a condition could be included to restrict the height on the compound to prevent the stacking of containers; a condition related to landscaping of the site would ensure that indigenous species be included; and whilst development of the site for open storage would have some impact on the listed buildings, the previous use of the building and site had been for commercial uses in connection with the railway. 

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was noted:-

•             No restriction in the hours of use had been proposed.  Officers would have looked to propose a restriction if Public Protection had requested. There were many businesses throughout the County operating with no restriction in working hours. It would be reasonable to assume that if the storage was being used by small businesses they may on occasions need to access these out of the usual business hours and unless Public Protection had requested a restriction then it would be very difficult to justify the need.  Councillor Pattison stressed that this was a site in the centre of a very quiet rural village and would require a restriction.

•             The informatives would be attached to any permission granted.

•             Network Rail had requested lighting as outlined in condition 5 in order to ensure that it did not impact on the running of the railway.

•             If Members felt it necessary then all the suggestions made by the Parish Council could be included as conditions attached to any permissions.

•             Whilst the concerns raised by the Parish Council were valid, as there had been no objections to the application by the Council’s Highways, Public Protection or Ecology or Network Rail, subject to conditions being imposed, then to refuse the application on those grounds would be difficult.

•             The NPPF required the Local Planning Authority to balance harm against public benefit and in Officers’ opinion the new business which will in turn support other small businesses was sufficient to outweigh the harm.

The Director of Planning suggested that a condition be attached for a height limit on the site and, due to its location in the village, a restriction for the use of the site between 6 am and 10 pm could be used.  He advised that if such a restriction was appealed, then evidence might need to be provided to say this was necessary and it was reasonable and proportionate to any nuisance.   The Planning Officer highlighted that whilst the site was in a small village, it was next to the railway line with trains going through at all times and in close proximity to a working farm.

Councillor Pattison proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of visual impact on the village and impact on residential amenity in respect of noise and air quality, which was seconded by Councillor Hill.

In debating the issue Councillors felt that there was some benefit to local people and rural businesses who required storage in the area and accepted that this type of storage was required, some felt this was in the wrong location based on conservation grounds.

A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application for the following reasons :

•         Visual impact on the Village.

•         Impact on residential amenity in relation to noise and air quality.

•         Impact on the amenity and setting of the listed buildings.

FOR 7; AGAINST 3

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

•                Visual impact on the Village.

•                Impact on residential amenity in relation to noise and air quality.

•                Impact on the amenity and setting of the listed buildings.