Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that the application proposes to remove an existing metal shed for the hay store and with associated boundary treatment, with the hay stored in the building being for the applicant’s horse in the field opposite and the application has received no neighbourhood objections and there is no technical consultee objection to the proposal and Doddington Parish Council support it. He stated that the hay store is screened by existing mature trees to the north of the site to reduce visibility from Swan Cottage and the new replacement which is located north of it and the visibility is from Dykemoor Drove, with Dykemoor Drove primarily used to access farming land and to provide a link between Benwick Road and Primrose Hill and, therefore, a hay store, in his view, is appropriate in this location.

Mr Lunn-Towler stated that with regards to the proposed boundary treatment, lining the west of the site opposite Dykemoor Drove is a 1.8-metre-high close board fence and the reason for the appearance of the fence is to reduce the visibility from the road to increase the privacy and security of the applicant’s land. He explained that the need to reduce the visibility is to the screen the area from Swan Cottage which reduces the overall continuous visual monitoring of the land.

Mr Lunn-Towler concluded that the application is supported by the Parish Council and the proposed development is considered to be suitable in the location.

Members asked Mr Lunn-Towler the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that whilst he does not have an issue with the application, however, it does appear to look quite stark. He added that when you travel further along the road there are other metal constructed buildings which are pained black as well as a chicken farm which has low buildings. Councillor Marks asked whether the applicant would be prepared to paint the structure black or at least take the colourant out of the shed? Mr Lunn Towler stated that the applicant would be prepared to paint the store green in order for it to blend in with the landscape.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the point made by Councillor Marks that it does appear to be quite stark. He referred to the presentation screen and added that there does appear to be a vehicle stored within the store and, therefore, should the application be approved then it must be used as a hay store and not for storing vehicles or used as living quarters. Councillor Connor added that he does agree that the store could do with toning down or maybe consideration could be given to plant some trees to go towards improving the street scene. Mr Lunn-Towler added that an enhancement scheme could be added in order to assist with the application being considered for approval. Councillor Connor stated that there will be further debate from members but if the application is to be approved, he would like to see some additional conditions added.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that that the new fence has been included which will weather over time, but the store will not and if that were to be painted in a black or green colour would that be more acceptable to officers? Gavin Taylor explained that there are two issues to consider including the building itself and the low quality materials which have been used as well as the fence which is situated right on the highway and is a continuous screen of fencing which is incongruous to the countryside and whether it is painted green or left natural, it will still be a continuous screen of fencing along the highway edge which is not in keeping with the area. He explained that there are different fences which could be used and would be more appropriate in the rural context of that location, with a lot of agricultural areas using post and rail fencing and whilst painting may change the appearance of it, it will not overcome the stark screening that the close continuous close board fencing achieves but by painting the building it may mute it slightly.

·         Councillor Benney stated that when he drove past the site recently the fence was down, and he agrees with the point that Gavin Taylor has made with regards to the fence being very close to the road. He added that it may not be the correct type of fence that is erected there because if it going to keep blowing down then maybe consideration needs to be given to erecting something better in that location. Councillor Benney made the point that it is a one-track road and when you reach Doddington Road, the fence does cause a slight restriction for passing along there too. He asked Gavin Taylor to provide details with regards to the width of the road as it does make a difference now to the width when trying to pass another vehicle. Gavin Taylor confirmed that the width is 4.2 metres wide at its widest point and 3.9 metres at its narrowest.

·         Councillor Marks asked officers to clarify that they are content that the fence is located on the landowner’s boundary, and it is not encroaching onto the highway or onto County Council land? Gavin Taylor explained that no comments have been received from the Highway Authority on the application and he explained that the applicant has made a declaration that the land is theirs and they do not appear to have served notice on the Highway Authority to indicate any encroachment, however, if there is any encroachment onto highway land then the County Council have enforcement powers which they can use to take any necessary action. Councillor Marks questioned that if the applicant erected post and rail fencing along there in exactly the same place then there would still be the same passing issue, but it could still go on the same boundary. Gavin Taylor stated that theoretically if the Highway Authority have no issues with encroachment onto their land then from a planning perspective if it was swapped over to post and rail fencing then the applicant could do that.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that it is a long fence and he notes that the Highway Authority have not responded with any objection, however, the junction at the end of the road is not ideal and if visibility splays were being looked when exiting then you would be looking onto Doddington Road and he questioned whether highway safety is affected in anyway. Gavin Taylor stated that under permitted development rights, the Highway Authority would generally ask for a height of 0.6 metres for a fence of some sort in order for visibility to be maintained. He added that if you are exiting the site then you would expect the standards to be met there and there are no comments from the Highway Authority and officers have not raised that as an objection. Gavin Taylor made the point that it would be difficult to achieve the standard visibility leaving the site onto the highway given the close boarded nature of the fence and perhaps a more open type of fencing would improve it, but there is no detail of any assessment which has been taken to substantiate that.

·         Councillor Benney added that the Highway Authority do not always comment and he made the point that there are instances where desk top surveys are undertaken which, is his opinion, means that full consideration has not been given to a scheme and he asked whether officers can advise whether this was a desk top survey which was undertaken. Gavin Taylor explained that there is no assessment of the highway impact on this development which has been received and therefore the only objection that officers have raised is on visual harm. He added that in order to receive comments from the Highway Authority in this case, officers would need to go back to them to ascertain whether they are content with the scheme. Matthew Leigh added that if members do have concerns with this aspect then the application could be deferred in order to obtain comments from the Highway Authority.

·         Councillor Connor stated that safety is an issue, and he would like to see the item deferred in order to receive some further information as members do have concerns.

·         Councillor Marks stated that deferment does seem to be a sensible approach, and added that if the Highway Authority highlight an issue he would like the agent and applicant to be made aware so that they can consider taking steps in order to mitigate the concerns of the Highway Authority. He expressed the view that if they are not prepared to take steps to deal with any concerns highlighted then it will have to be taken on face value, however, he would like to see all parties working together in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Councillor Marks stated that he would also like confirmation that the applicant is happy to paint the building and fence as well.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the officer’s report states that the application must be determined by the 17 January and, therefore, time is very short. Matthew Leigh stated that officers can request an extension of time as highway safety is a material consideration. He added that if the applicant appeals an un determination then officers can flag up that a major concern is one of highway safety.

·         Councillor Connor asked the agent Liam Lunn-Towler to come back to the public participation table. Councillor Connor stated that the committee have debated the application and have concerns with regards to the fence and the visibility splays as they are at the present time and he asked whether he would be content to accept an extension of time in order for the Highway Authority to be consulted. Mr Liam Lunn-Towler confirmed that he would be happy to accept an extension of time in order to receive the comments of highways and to work with officers to reach a satisfactory resolution.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for clarity over the actual use of the store as it is currently being used to store a high-top box van as well as the hay and he asked whether the store is for multipurpose uses.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the application is for a hay store and as it stands at the current time as a vehicle is being stored in it then the applicant is not abiding with the purpose that the store is made for.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he does not know the applicant, but he added that there is a hay merchant in Doddington who does exactly the same by storing a van in a barn and, therefore, it maybe something that forms part of parcel for someone who stores hay and members need to be careful by not making assumptions that the store is being used to house vehicles.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to receive further information from the Highway Authority and the applicant.

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant was a supplier to a previous business he was a director of over 15 years ago, however, he remains open minded)