AMPNEY CRUCIS PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON MONDAY 12 JUNE 2006
IN THE VILLAGE HALL, AMPNEY CRUCIS.
Present:
Councillors David
Vessey, Gerald Gaden, Barry Dent,
Adrian Grazebrook, Roger Hayes and Peter Kelly
District Councillor Edward Horsfall
Presiding: Councillor David Vessey
Clerk: Mrs H Tonks
The meeting commenced at 7.00pm. There were 12 members of the public present.
1. Apologies for Absence
Councillor Tim Tremellen
2. Planning application CT 2905/Y and Planning application CT 2905/Z
Councillor Vessey circulated draft papers for to all those present. Following some discussion, and the addition of further information, it was agreed that the following letter be sent to Mike Napper, Cotswold District Council, with copies to Sarah Scrivens, Gloucestershire County Council, and County Councillor Lady Mavis Dunrossil.
Dear Mr Napper,
Planning applications CT 2905/Y and CT 2905/Z – Builder’s Yard, Park Close, Ampney Crucis
Ampney Crucis Parish Council considered the above applications at a meeting of the Council held on 12 June. The overall decision was to recommend permission to 2905/Y (subject to certain caveats) and to recommend refusal of 2905/Z
Background
The Builder’s Yard is a site located at the southern end of a larger area known as Park Close. It lies in open countryside, outside the built area of the village. Up until 1990, the site had been used essentially as an agricultural smallholding followed by a period of use as a storage base for a local builder.
During this time there had been three applications to construct residential property (2905/ M, N and T) all of which had been refused on the grounds that the site lay in open countryside. There had also been three attempts at non-residential development, one successful (2905/R) and two unsuccessful (2905/Q and 2905/S). The successful application was for stables and tackroom, the unsuccessful applications (one of which went to appeal) were for commercial development. In both cases, the principal reasons for refusal were the rural nature of the site, the poor road infrastructure and the need to protect the amenity of local residents.
In 1990, the District Council relented and permitted planning application 2905/U. This allowed a local company to build a workshop with messroom and toilet facilities for employees engaged in a rural industry, the winning and storage of natural stone tiles. Because of the sensitivity of the area, the permission had a number of conditions attached. The grant of planning permission had all the hall marks of a “one off” and was seen as a gesture of goodwill towards a local company engaged in a traditional business.
This goodwill was not reciprocated. There was no pressing need for the building as construction did not start until 1995. Within two years, concerns were being raised about the use of the site for a heavy haulage business and, in 1998, enforcement action was taken and upheld on appeal.
The site (which now has the established use as a builder’s yard) was subsequently sold and there is now some promotion of ‘Park Close Units’. Two companies in addition to the owners of the site have been in occupation there. The net result is, that without any formal permission having been sought or given, agreement to provide facilities for employees in a low key rural industry appears to have evolved into a small industrial estate. In the Parish Council’s view, it is time to revive the principles under which 2905/U was approved and to recognise that this rural area and the local residents deserve the protection given to it by the District Council over the years up to and including 1990.
PLANNING APPLICATION 2905/Y
The application which the Parish Council has received is deficient in a number of respects.
§ The application asks for the personal permission attached to the site to be removed whereas the personal permission actually applies to the building on the site.
§ The application does not indicate the building and there is nothing to relate ‘Unit 1’ to the building in question.
§ The attached paperwork (which was merely a copy of the original decision) is incomplete as it omits the original reason for condition (i)
§ No reason is given for removing the condition.
Nevertheless, the Parish Council has considered this application on the assumptions that the building and Unit 1 are one and the same and that the reason for removing the condition is that it is unnecessarily restrictive.
Overall summary
The Parish Council’s overall opinion is that it has no objection in principle to condition (i) being removed subject to the following caveats:
1. The building should remain as a workshop and messroom facility used in connection with the established use of the site as a whole as a builder’s yard.
2. The building and site should remain as a low key operation within Class B1 (or the equivalent to that Class should there be any future change to the current system of classification) with minimal vehicle movements having regard for the rural location of the site and the proximity of neighbouring residential property.
3. The building and site should be used for the sole occupancy of one owner or tenant.
4. The site should be kept in a tidy condition and free of any surplus or discarded material having regard to the rural location of the site and the amenity of neighbouring residential property and, in addition, in accordance with the principles of conditions (c) and (d) attached to 2905/U.
5. All buildings and structures, other than the building permitted under 2905/U, should be removed from the site
The reasons for requiring these caveats are given in the Appendix.
PLANNING APPLICATION 2905/Z
The application which the Parish Council has received is deficient in two specific areas it gives neither the use to which the site is to be put (the answer to section 8 is ‘N/A’) and no reason has been given for removing the condition. Nevertheless, the Parish Council has considered the application on the assumption that it is a request to remove a condition in order to allow alternative development (and it is noted that there is no specific planning permission in place for the use of the site for any purpose). The Parish Council also assumes that the words ‘retail sales’ implies offering an on-site service to domestic consumers as well as trade consumers.
Overall summary
The Parish Council accepts the ‘fait accompli’ in relation to the Builder’s Yard in that there is permission for a single building providing workshop and employee facilities for a low key builder’s yard in an area defined as open countryside. It strongly objects to any attempt to extend the use of the site which would be implied by the removal of condition (g)
The Parish Council recommends that this application should be refused. The Council’s reasons are given in the Appendix.
Yours sincerely
Helen Tonks
Clerk.
cc: Edward Horsfall, District Councillor
Sarah Scriven, Gloucestershire County Council
APPENDIX
Parish Council’s reasons for conditions on 2905/Y
1. Permission currently exists for W E Berry and Sons specifically to erect a workshop and messroom facilities on site for the use of employees engaged in the winning and storage of stone tiles. The use of the site is now recognised as a builder’s yard.
In dismissing the appeal against enforcement in 1998, the Planning Inspector said:
“The permission is for the development applied for which was a workshop on a builder’s yard. The use of the building itself was not subject to any condition and it may be used as a workshop in connection with the established use of the site but the permission cannot be construed as permitting use in connection with an unauthorised haulage business.”
He went on to say that the planning permission did not mean that the building could be used for any purpose chosen by the owners. In line with this judgement, the Parish Council has no objection to the use of the building as a workshop and messroom facilities for employees engaged in the business of a builder’s yard being extended to the current owner rather than W E Berry and Sons specifically.
2. Planning permission under 2905/U was given on the basis of a small scale operation with up to six employees and an additional two vehicle movements per day. The Parish Council feels very strongly that the low key nature of the permitted use must be re-established in line with 2905/U.
In dismissing the appeal against 2905/X (where RTA Drilling attempted to construct a research facility with ancillary residential accommodation) the Planning Inspector said:
“I consider that the generally low key Class B1 use which the applicant seeks to transfer to this site would be acceptable. This coincides with the view taken by both the Council and the Highways Authority”
In this context, ‘low key’ meant five employees on site with an additional traffic load of “2 small vans per week”
The Inspector also drew attention to the comments of the Highway Authority who had made it clear that they would raise no objection to reuse of the site for a commercial development which would generate low vehicular trip rates.
The Parish Council also feels that the attention of the District Council should be drawn to part of a letter sent in 2000 (and sent by the same agents submitting application 2905/Y) to certain local residents who objected to 2905/X. In this letter, the agents made the following statement:
“If no acceptable alternative can be found, the site will be used as a builder’s yard by a contractor who is currently based in Cirencester. The current business includes 70 employees and associated commercial vehicles, plant, materials, containers and equipment which would be moved to the yard”
The Parish Council feels that it is necessary for the District Council to make it clear that this will not happen in order to calm the fears of local residents. Consequently, the Council feels it reasonable that the current and future use of the site should be restricted to Class B1 use in much the same way as a similar condition was requested and imposed recently on planning application 5306/D (Waterton Farm, Ampney Crucis).
3. Throughout the planning history of the site since 1990, the Planning Inspector, the District Council and the agents representing the applicants have referred to the site as “a builder’s yard” i.e. the singular tense. In considering the appeal to 2905/X, the Inspector spoke about the acceptability of a future change of use in the singular tense e.g. ‘another user’, ‘ a relatively low-key industrial or commercial business’.
Permission was originally granted solely to W E Berry and Sons to meet their specific needs, a condition granted presumably because of the sensitivity of the site given its past history of refusals. All the parties seem to agree that the site was, and is, appropriate for one occupant. The removal of condition (i) need have no impact on this aspect of the original permission.
4. The site lies in an area designated as open countryside and earlier planning refusals were on the basis that commercial development would be an intrusion. The site in its current state is evidence of a continuous decline and there was a good deal of comment from members of the public attending the Parish Council meeting on 12 June about the impact of this on neighbouring property. The original conditions required a scheme of landscaping to be established and there is no reason why the basic principles of these conditions i.e. to respect the local residential area, should not be re-stated and reimposed.
5. Planning permission 2905/U was specific in granting planning permission for one building on this site for facilities needed to support the employees of one company. No other planning permission has been made to extend the facilities or buildings on the site and so it is not unreasonable to ask for all such structures additional to that approved under 2905/U to be removed.
.
Parish Council’s reasons for objecting to 2905/Z
The site is unsuitable for this kind of development given the very narrow roads and difficult road junctions in and around the immediate area of the site and the undesirability of increasing vehicular traffic through the village. In this connection, the Parish Council would again draw attention to the comments made by the Planning Inspector at the appeal against 2905/X.
The Inspector drew attention to the comments of the Highway Authority who had made it clear that they would raise no objection to reuse of the site for a commercial development which would generate low vehicular trip rates. The Inspector pointed out that the Authority had commented on the following aspects of the site:
The Inspector concluded:
“I share the Highway Authority’s opinion that the location of the appeal site would encourage domestic trips to be made by car, rather than other means of transport and that the appeal proposal would therefore conflict with the relevant development plan policies referred to earlier.”
The Policies contained in CDC Local Plan 2001 – 2011 tend to emphasise the need to restrict car borne travelling (Policy 19). Policy 24 is more specific in not permitting employee related development in the open countryside and by requiring that the access and surrounding road network is adequate for use by the vehicles needed to service the area. In the Parish Council’s opinion, the site is totally unsuitable for retail sales.
It was suggested that if residents wished to contact the District Council they should do so, confirming their support of this letter and the personal effects of the application. Should they wish to take advice they should do so.
During discussions concerns were raised about the history of the site and the disputes between Wildmoor and local residents.
3. Calves Hill
The Parish Council have been given no further information regarding Calves Hill, other than that the agents have been given a further extension for the submission of an Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness (CLUED). If the application was not received by the specified date (16 June) , it was not known whether the enforcement officers would be able to initiate enforcement action before the next District Council planning meeting.
A Certificate of Lawfulness requires a claimed history of use and objections will take the form of contradictory evidence.
The Chairman thanked those who attended.
The meeting closed at 8.20pm.