Address:       Land to south-west of Higham Cottages, Higham Road, Higham Gobion (nearest post code SG5 3HN)

Proposed grain store including new access and means of enclosure.

Applicant:     Chamberlain Holdings PLC

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05250/FULL for a proposed grain store including new access and means of enclosure on land to the south west of Higham Cottages, Higham Road, Higham Gobion.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional/publicity responses, additional comments and additional/amended conditions in the form of additional informatives as set out in the Late Sheet.  In addition the planning officer advised the meeting of an additional recommended condition to ensure that the proposed building and premises were used only for the purposes of agricultural storage.   There was also an error in recommended condition 6.  The distance given of ‘215.0mm’ should be amended to read ‘215m’.  Following a query by the Chairman the planning officer explained that the new condition had been introduced because of an existing industrial site nearby.  He also confirmed that the new building was to remain in agricultural use in perpetuity unless an application was made otherwise.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the applicant’s agent regarding the loss of the existing grain store and the reason for the location of the proposed grain store.  In response the agent stated that the existing store had already been lost and the tenant farmer only had a small amount of temporary storage. However, the tenant currently had to transport crops off site to a remote storage facility which was not financially viable.  The proposed grain store would be located centrally between the two land holdings.

The Member then sought clarification regarding the agent’s mention of restrictions around the location of the proposed store to the existing cluster of buildings at Manor Farm when, she felt, it would cause less landscape harm if it was placed close to existing farm buildings and why this was not an option.  The agent responded that the Manor Farm business park was entirely tenanted by a veterinary practice so putting a building on the site or using its access was not possible legally because of the tenancy that existed.  A building could be put on the opposite side of the road where there was a junction but there were no access points on to the land so a new one would need to be provided.  However, it was a more elevated position so it was felt that putting the proposed grain store lower down in the dip of the landscape was preferable than at the top of a hill where it would be more prominent.

At the request of the Member the agent defined the tenanted area to the north of Higham Road.

Another Member sought clarification as to the location of Manor Farm and Bury Farm in relation to the proposed grain store site and the former storage site at Chalton Cross and the distance involved in miles.  In response the agent stated that the former arrangement, by which the grain was transported to Chalton Cross, had been inconvenient because of the lengthy distance involved.  He was unable to inform the meeting of the mileage between the various sites mentioned but, instead, held up a map which, he claimed, illustrated the central position of the proposed grain store in Higham Gobion.  In relation to the land holdings.  The Member stated that he believed the agent had assisted him as far as he could but this was insufficient.

Another Member sought clarification as to why the application had been required.  He referred to the height and construction of the building as being appropriate regarding Permitted Development Rights (PDRs) and asked if it was the floor area of the proposed grain store which prevented it from fully complying.  The agent stated that he believed it was the floor area took the store beyond the PDRs’ limits.  The Member repeated that the height of the store was acceptable and asked why the applicant required the floor area when, if it had been slightly smaller, the application would have been unnecessary.  In response the agent explained that the floor area was dictated by the amount of storage required to serve the landholding.  He added that even the floor area requested was not sufficient in itself for a landholding of that size and some crops would still have to be taken off site to remote storage.  The proposed store would deal primarily with the wheat crop.

The ward Member commented that the officer’s report appeared finely balanced and referred to the large number of conditions imposed.  She then stated that she would focus on the road traffic problems, the waste water issues the archaeological implications and the landscape itself.

The ward Member stated that Higham Road was a busy road with a 60 mph speed limit, an acknowledged need for speed restrictions and frequently the scene of near misses.  She referred to photographs which showed recent skid marks at the site and to the recently broken yellow chevron sign at the Shillington end of the road which she felt indicated another speeding vehicle having crashed into the hedge.  The ward Member stated that the visibility splays only appeared to refer to vehicles leaving the site.  However, the problem was one of a lack of visibility for drivers approaching the site from around the bend from the direction of Shillington especially should they encounter an articulated lorry turning across the road into the site.

Turning to the possible contamination of the water source the ward Member referred to the site laying above a principal aquifer and an open brook with indigenous cray fish.  She stated the list of recommended conditions was the longest she had seen outside an industrial site and, having read out some of them, commented that they indicated the scale of the threat from what was called an agricultural site.

The ward Member next raised the matter of archaeology.  The sites opposite that proposed for the grain store were defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as heritage sites of highest significance.  There was also a 14^th century church with a 16^th century manor house adjacent to it nearby.  12^th century pottery had been found in the field directly opposite the site and it was therefore highly probable that the mediaeval village continued under the modern road and the grain store site.  The ward Member referred to the recommended condition relating to archaeological investigation as confirmation of this.

Last, the ward Member turned to the living environment.  The applicant had stated that the proposed grain store would be in keeping with the landscape.  However, at just under 9 metres high with a 2 metre metal fence it just fell within the parameters for such a building.  Whilst the planning officer felt its appearance would not have an unacceptable impact the landscape officer had 

disagreed in full and provided a number of reasons why the application was unacceptable.  Further any planned landscape mitigation would be inadequate due to the large scale of the proposed store.

In conclusion the ward Member briefly reiterated the impact of the application on Higham Gobion and rendering Shillington Church and Higham Gobion Church invisible by its position and size.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to the possible contamination of the water source which bordered the site to the east there were a number of recommended conditions following consultation with the Environment Agency and the Internal Drainage Board.  Neither body had objected to the proposed grain store.

·         The archaeology officer, in recognition that archaeological assets might be in the area, had suggested conditions for adoption to protect any items.  He had not, however, objected to the application.

·         The landscape officer had objected with regard to the scale of the building.  However, it was the officers’ opinion that the site was located in a natural dip in the ground and the local churches referred to by the ward Member sat on much higher ground levels.  Whilst there would be a visual impact on the landscape it was a rural landscape without any special protection.  It was not an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or Green Belt or other landscape designation.

·         On balance, and given the need for the proposed grain store location and the potential impact on the landscape, the officers felt that the impact of the store was felt to be acceptable given the location of the building.

The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The speed of the road was 60 mph which was in line with the design manual for roads and bridges.  Visibility splays of 2.4m by 215 metres would need to be provided as conditioned.  Some hedges would need to be removed and replanted outside of the visibility splays.

·         Any speeding vehicles were the responsibility of the Police.

·         There would be a requirement for three HGV spaces and four car spaces on the site and, given the size of the site, this could be met.

·         As regards the slow turning speed of the HGVs entering the site from Higham Road given the speed of traffic the highways officer stated that the visibility line of 215 metres was there for vehicles approaching the site to enable drivers to see any obstruction.  He added that the distance of 215 metres was an older standard and a shorter distance was now recommended.  However, the Council wished to continue implementing the old standard.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         A Member asked for clarification with regard to PDRs in the open countryside.  In response the planning officer explained that there were PDRs which related to agricultural holdings for the erection of buildings to be used in conjunction with those holdings (buildings for agricultural use).   Whilst the grain store had not been directly assessed against the Permitted Development requirements the comments raised earlier by a Member were correct in that the floor area was over that permitted under the PDRs for agricultural buildings whilst the height of the proposed building was under the 12 metre limit of the PDRs. 

·         The Member, whilst understanding the need for a grain store because the previous one had been lost, expressed concern regarding its isolated location on what she felt was the wrong side of the road.  She expressed support for the ward Member’s comments and for the views of the landscape officer and stated that she was unable to support the application.

·         Another Member commented whilst there appeared to be a need for the proposed grain store its proposed location also appeared to be a considerable distance from the nearest farms.  He referred to the officer’s report and the opinion expressed in it that the application would not result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the area The Member commented that it would, in fact, have a major impact on that area of countryside given its size and design.  He stated that he was unable to support the application.

·         A Member commented on the opposition to larger housing developments that would arise because of the loss of agricultural land and yet opposition had also arisen to the provision of a grain store that impacted on the landscape.  He advised the Committee, however, that the applicant could build a taller grain store with a smaller footprint by going through the PDRs process.

·         With the applicant in mind a Member suggested that it would be perfectly possible to site a grain store in a way that was less harmful to the landscape.  The Member also referred to the landscape officer’s comments which she felt were well made.  She commented that the landscape officer rarely objected to an application but, as she had done so on this occasion, the Committee should take note.  She emphasised that there was no opposition to a grain store as such but that the location was the issue and it was possible for agricultural buildings to be sited more sensitively.

·         Whilst expressing full agreement with the previous speaker a Member stressed that the applicant could, none the less, return with an application for two taller grain stores if he so wished.

·         The Chairman reminded the meeting that the proposed location was not regarded as suitable by some but it was the one before the Committee and had to be determined.

On being put to the vote 8 Members voted for approval, 4 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/05250/FULL relating to land south west of Higham Cottages, Higham Road, Higham Gobion be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.