Agenda item

Fields OS 2571, 4565 and 3251 Barkestone Lane, Plungar

Cllr Chandler left the meeting at 6.06pm

 

19/00560/FUL

 

Applicant:     Duchess of Rutland

Location:      Fields OS 2571, 4565 and 3251 Barkestone Lane, Plungar

Proposal:     Retention of fertilizer silo and water tank.

 

(a)  The Development Manager (LP) presented the report and stated that:

The application is for the retention of a fertilizer silo and water tank at Barkestone Lane, Plungar, the requirement for a planning application has been raised by the proposal being retrospective and therefore not able to be considered under the prior notification assessment.

The site totals 35 sqm comprising a concrete base which supports a single 50 cubic metre liquid fertilizer storage tank and a 26,000 litre vertical sprayer tank, which are to be used in relation to the farming activities belonging to the Belvoir Estate.

Since the committee report has been published 2 additional representations have been received which raises concern over spill capture and visual impact, comments have now been received from the Canal and River Trust who recommend that Natural England are consulted in order to obtain appropriate advice to identify whether the proposal presents any likely risk to the SSI and if so, whether they can be adequately mitigated.

The application is recommended for refusal due to the prominent location causing visual harm to the open countryside and surrounding landscape contrary to Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.  The siting in this location is also considered to cause harm to the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of St Peter and St Paul and the Grade II listed Manor Farmhouse contrary to Policy EN13 of the Local Plan.

 

 

(b)  Cllr Smith, from the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Lack of application

·         Retrospective

·         Substantial harm to setting

·         Contrary to Policy EM1

·         Insensitive siting

·         Rural setting

·         Planning permission should have been sought first

·         No evidence of it being necessary in this location

 

A Cllr asked when the silos were built and when the complaints started.

 

Cllr Smith stated they were built approximately 2 years ago and complaints started before this year.

 

(c)  Cllr Evans, the Ward Councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Location concerns

·         OS Survey trigger point

·         Location of Grad II listed buildings

·         Multitude of footpaths providing views

·         Concern on late information circulated

·         No justification of site

·         A less intrusive site could be found

·         Visual intrusion

·         Lack of security and potential for vandalism

·         Area is constantly used – there is often flytipping

·         Concrete base would not contain fertiliser if it were to leak

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to defer the application as she had concerns about the late submission of information and it should be looked at properly and shared with the Parish Council and local people.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the proposal to defer and stated that Members should not be presented with extra information at the meeting and that it is needed well in advance.

 

A Cllr stated that they could not support a deferment and noted that the late letter would have been the agent’s 4 minute speaking slot. If the application is refused it will need to come back to find a second location.

 

A Cllr asked if it needs planning permission as it is nearly 2 years since it was built.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager stated that it needs planning permission because it is retrospective. If an application had been submitted before it was built it may have been built under ‘Prior Notification’.

 

A Cllr stated that they may have considered other sites as a possibility if they had been told to.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager stated that a Prior Notification application would have investigated this.

 

A vote to defer the application was taken. 2 Members voted in favour of deferment. 7 Members voted against.

 

Cllr Faulkner proposed to refuse the application as it is the highest point in the area, is the setting of 2 listed buildings, and is above a site of scientific interest.

 

Cllr Steadman seconded the proposal to refuse.

 

A Cllr was concerned about the possible contamination of the canal.

 

A Cllr supported the proposal to refuse and encouraged the applicant to work with the Parish Council and LPA to find a better site.

 

A Cllr asked if the application applied for temporary planning permission could Committee condition a limit, and ask for consultation on possible sites.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager advised that the LPA could either approve for a temporary period of time or serve an enforcement notice, which will be served with a certain time scale.

 

The Chair wished for ample time to be given for removal.

 

A Cllr suggested 6 months would be sufficient.

 

The Solicitor to the Council advised that an enforcement notice could be served with this timescale in.

 

A vote to refuse the application was taken. 8 Members voted in favour of refusal. 1 Member abstained.

 

Determination: REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the silo, water bowser and associated concrete base in this location is considered contrary to Policy EN1 of the Melton Local Plan by reason of its prominent location and visibility, resulting in a imposing, adverse impact upon the intrinsic character of its open countryside location and to the detriment of its landscape setting.

 

2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, The siting of this agricultural equipment has been insensitively placed, resulting in harm to the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of St Peter and St Paul and the Grade II listed Manor Farmhouse. The proposal is therefore contrary to EN13 of the Melton Local Plan which states proposals should ensure the protection and enhancement of heritage assets, including their setting. No public benefits are present to outweigh this harm.