Agenda item

Land East Side Of Austrey Lane Appleby Parva Derby

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr P Lees, objector, addressed the Committee.  He explained that every resident in the village had signed the objection for a number of reasons.  Firstly, the proposal was contrary to policy S6 and was not an essential agricultural building as represented within the report as it would not be used for business but for a hobby, the land owner did not farm any of his land or  own any animals.  He believed that the application was the first step to developing the site and the applicant was trying to get around planning by putting forward the application.  He believed that the proposed access to the site was not safe as it was situated on a bend which meant it was impossible to see oncoming traffic; he guaranteed that accidents would occur if the application was permitted.  He brought Members attention to the fact that the proposed height of the building was 5.2 metres and was supposedly for a tractor, considering that the biggest tractor in the village was 3 metres high, he did not believe that this would be the use of the building.  He concluded that the application was very misleading and very poor, therefore he urged Members to refuse it.

Councillor R Blunt, ward member, addressed the committee.  He began by stating that as Members who visited the site would have seen, the area was of outstanding beauty and the site itself was only a small field which some would consider a garden.  The Council had a duty to protect the countryside and this application would be a visual intrusion on the area.  He added that the piece of land was definitely not used for farming.  He concurred with the comments of Mr P Lees and urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds that it would have an adverse visual impact, the proposed access was dangerous and that the building was not required as the agricultural use did not apply.

Councillor J G Coxon moved that the application be refused on the grounds stated above.  It was seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor D Harrison commented that having been to the site it did not look like it would be used for farming especially now he was aware that the land owner did not currently farm.  He asked if the officer’s recommendation to permit had been made on the basis that it would be used to store a tractor.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that officer’s made a judgement by taking a number of things into account, including the size of the land and views of the agricultural officer.  Regarding the reasons for refusal, the Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that as the Highway Authority had not objected and that there was already gated access to the site, dangerous access would not be a strong reason for refusal.  Councillor J G Coxon felt that the proposed access was on a dangerous part of the road which the Highway Authority had already reduced the speed of; therefore he wished the reason for refusal to remain.

Councillor P Purver commented that she passed the site daily and the land level was higher than the road junction, when you add this to the height of the proposed building she believed that the size would have an adverse affect. 

Councillor J Geary commented that the application was a classic example of the importance of non pre-determination.  His initial thoughts whilst on site were that it was very messy and any kind of development would tidy up the site considerably.  However, now he had listened to the comments and discussion at the meeting he was in support of the motion to refuse.

Councillor J Legrys agreed that it was an untidy site that was on a very heavily used road.  As the Highway Authority had no objections he felt that the reason for refusal based on the dangerous access could not be defended in the event of an appeal, therefore it was his opinion that it should not be included.  He believed it was an area of outstanding beauty and what he had seen on the site was a scrub land that was in need of development.

For clarification, the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the access to the site was not directly onto the A444, so vehicles would not be exiting directly onto this busy road.

Councillor D Everitt commented that he liked to see overgrown natural landscape and hoped that it would stay that way.

Councillor G Jones felt that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application then the land owner should be issued with a tidying up order.

Councillor J Clarke agreed that the site should be tidied up but he did not believe a building of the proposed size would enhance the area.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it would have an adverse visual impact, the proposed access was dangerous and that the building was not required as the agricultural use did not apply.