SUMMARY REPORT

Application Ref: 20160635

Site Address: 2 Downs Road Istead Rise DA13 9HE

Application Continued shared use of existing building as farm office and Description: staff rest area for Willerby Farm and as offices and rest area for Highway Recovery Services Limited with associated staff facilities including retention of overnight accommodation provision and temporary storage of recovered vehicles in association with Highway Recovery Services Limited.

Applicant: Mr W Elliot

Agent: Mrs Jane Scott, Hobbs Parker Property

Ward: Istead Rise

Parish: Non-Parish Area

Decision due date: 16 August 2016

Publicity expiry date: 19 August 2016

Decision level: Planning Regulatory Board - 07 September 2016

Reasons for referral: Request of Cllr John Knight due to concerns of local impact and intensification of use

Recommendation: Deferred for additional information and subsequent assessment

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation

A planning application (20130967) for the use of an agricultural building at Willerby Farm for part agricultural use and part use by a vehicle recovery firm was granted planning permission on a temporary basis in February 2014 following a report to the Board at its meeting on 15 January 2014, a Member Site Inspection which was held on 25 January 2014 and subsequent report back to the Board meeting on 12 February 2014.

The planning permission runs for three years expiring on 28 February 2017 and was therefore intended to allow review of the operation and its local impact during the temporary permission.

The site is within the Green Belt and on the edge of the village of Istead Rise.

The current proposal is in this case for a permanent permission and is also seeking variations to the terms of the temporary permission. Although effectively the temporary planning permission has still some six months to run the applicants have submitted for an earlier determination as a result of current breaches of conditions relating to the number of vehicles being kept on the site, being an increase in the number of recovery vehicles from 3 to 5 vehicles and the length of period that vehicles may be stored, being longer than overnight.

The issues to consider in the determination of the application are: • whether the use of the building and site, on a permanent basis, accords with adopted development plan policy; • whether the continued use would harm the character and appearance of the area, particularly having regard to the more recent intensification, both in the numbers of vehicles associated with the use and the length of storage; • whether the development would result in harm to local amenity by reason of noise and disturbance; and • whether there would be any harm to traffic safety

An analysis of the current proposal in relation to adopted planning policy and national planning advice as well as consideration of the local representations in response to the proposal would suggest that the development as now proposed and seemingly a more intensified form of operation (albeit that this appears to already be happening) would not be in conformity with established planning policies particularly in relation to the location of the site being within the Green Belt.

Notwithstanding that there is a clear identified conflict with adopted planning policy and notably the impact on the openness of the Green Belt nevertheless the Borough Council has previously granted a temporary planning permission in order to allow review of the operation and its local impact during the temporary period which would suggest that the Council saw some merit in the operation of the business in this location and no doubt as a suitable reuse of a farm building as a way of supporting the rural economy and this is a material consideration. It is likely that at that time it was considered that the operation would be reasonably low key but the concerns emanating from the intensification and non-conformity with the planning conditions imposed and taking into account the objections received from local residents are whether it is possible to maintain a low key operation but recognising the business needs of the operation that does not materially impact on local amenity, does not harm the character and appearance of the semi-rural location and does not harm the openness of the Green Belt.

On balance and in weighing all the conflicting issues it is recommend that a decision be DEFERRED and that additional information is essential before a final decision can be made.

------

MAIN REPORT

1. Site Description and Surroundings

1.1 Willerby Farm is located on the south western side of Downs Road in Istead Rise. The farm is an active arable unit apparently in excess of 128 hectares (316 acres).

1.2 The Farmyard includes a number of detached farm buildings as well as a detached two storey farmhouse which fronts on to Downs Road. The yard is accessed by a gated access and part tarmac road which slopes upwards towards the farm buildings from Downs Road. There is a separate access that also serves the building and yard similarly gated that runs along the north-west side of the farmhouse which links with the main farm access road at some 40m from the junction on to Downs Road.

1.3 The specific site to which this particular application relates comprises a single storey brick building under a tiled shallow pitch roof measuring 13m by 6.7m as well as a surfaced yard area immediately north east of the building and grassed areas either side of the hard surfaced yard area. The building has the outward appearance of a bungalow. The building is located approx. 140 metres from the junction of the farm access road with Downs Road.

1.4 This single storey building was granted planning permission in 1991 under the Council’s reference GR/91/0448 subject to planning conditions which restricted its use solely to an office, canteen/restroom and amenity building ancillary to the farm and not to be used either temporarily or permanently for living accommodation. Internally the building comprises a main office with associated comfy seating and T.V; kitchen (described as canteen/break area); bathroom with toilet and shower facilities; rest area comprising bed for occasional use; and further toilet/shower facilities with external access only.

1.5 The office and associated facilities are apparently currently shared between the applicant, Mr Elliot, who is the farmer and landowner and by Mr Anderson of Highways Recovery Services Limited, a vehicle recovery business. Mr Anderson has, as a result of a temporary planning permission (20130967) granted by this Council in 2014, parked three vehicles belonging to his business at the site, there being two towing vehicles and a van, on an existing hard standing area in front of the office/restroom building under the terms of the planning conditions, as well as storing recovered vehicles (an unspecified number) for overnight recovery. The number of vehicles associated with the business has more recently increased and the storage of recovered vehicles extending beyond overnight storage (and this is referred to elsewhere in this report) and it was also noted following a recent site inspection that a shipping container has been located on the site for use for storage of barrels of mixed fuel.

1.6 The office building sits behind an existing large agricultural barn and is partly screened from adjoining residential properties (principally two storey semi- detached dwellings) in Longwalk, a short cul-de-sac off Downs Road, by existing vegetation to the boundary.

1.7 Highways Recovery Services Limited (HRS) operate a 24/7 vehicle breakdown, recovery and rescue service for cars, motorbikes and light vans (up to 3.5 ton) including misfuel assistance and light mechanical repairs. The proprietor of the business, Mr Anderson, resides in an adjoining dwelling in Longwalk (no 16), the rear garden of which is adjacent to the current parking and storage area of the business and the office element of the business used to be run within his own residential property with rescue and breakdown trucks parked in and around Longwalk.

1.8 The other agricultural buildings on the site include:

 A workshop of brick construction measuring approx. 12m by 12m with additions on the north and west sides;  A small but fairly tall 9m by 6m metal grain store with a brick lean to extension on the north side;

 An 18m by 24m brick and corrugated metal machinery store with retaining wall on the south side; and

 A more modern storage building for machinery 20m by 12.5m dating from a prior approval in 2005, and located to the south of the office building; a metal silo is located at the rear of this building.

1.9 The application site (including the farmhouse and all the other agricultural buildings at this holding) is within a Green Belt area just outside of the rural settlement/village boundary for Istead Rise which is inset from the Green Belt.

1.10 Downs Road is a classified highway and a local distributor route linking New Barn Road to the west with the A227 Wrotham Road to the east.

2. Planning History

2.1 Historical maps show that the application site was open farmland until the early 1960’s probably in use as an orchard.

2.2 A planning history search has revealed the following planning records in chronological order:

19900870: Section 64 application as to whether planning permission is required for erection of detached single storey building to form offices, toilets, canteen/restroom. Application Refused 25.03.1991

19910448: Erection of single storey detached building to form offices canteen/restroom, drying room and toilet accommodation. Permitted 30.09.1991

20050328: Determination as to whether prior approval is required for the erection of a machinery store building. Permitted 16.05.2005

20060938: Erection of replacement two storey rear extension to form utility room and shower room/wc at ground floor level with a bedroom/study at first floor level to farmhouse. Permitted 22.12.2006

20130967: Change of use of land and building from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and use by Highways Recovery Services Limited only, including variation of conditions (ii) and (iii) attached to planning permission reference number 19910448 to allow the mixed use of the building by Willerby Farm and Highway Recovery Services Limited, to regularise minor internal alterations and to permit the parking of three associated recovery vehicles. Temporary Permission 13.02.2014 (expiring on 28 February 2017).

2.3 Some of the other older agricultural buildings on the site may well have been built under agricultural permitted development rights, thus not specifically requiring planning permission. 3. Proposal

3.1 This current planning application is for continued shared use on a permanent basis of the existing single storey building as farm office and staff rest area for Willerby Farm and as offices and rest area for Highway Recovery Services Limited (HRS Ltd) with associated staff facilities including retention of overnight accommodation provision and temporary storage of recovered (crash damaged) vehicles in association with Highway Recovery Services Limited.

3.2 The application comprises:

Planning Application Form Ordnance Survey Red Line Plan Existing Floor Layout Plan Drawing No 01 by OSG Architecture Ltd dated October 2013 Planning Statement by Hobbs Parker Property Consultants LLP

3.3 The applicants planning statement indicates:

Since HRS Ltd have been in operation at the site, some variations in the needs of the business have become apparent and have resulted in some minor breaches of condition regarding overnight vehicle storage and the number of vehicles associated with the business and this full application seeks to address these issues in a permanent consent.

3.4 The statement indicates that in response to demand from such companies as the AA and Police for specialist recovery services HRS Ltd have increased the number of recovery vehicles from 3 (as limited by the current planning condition) to 5 – these are:

Two flat-bed recovery trucks (one is 12 tonne and the other 6.5 tonne) 1 Spectruck 2 Service vans (one of which is a service vehicle only and the second is a fuel drain van)

3.5 The statement also indicates vehicles are stored longer than overnight (contrary to the terms of the planning condition) and thus not always collected the next day. A detailed analysis of the storage of cars has been provided for the period 21 September 2015 until 25 May 2015 (approx. 8 months). During this period a total of 75 vehicles were stored with 35% of the vehicles on site for 1 night and an additional 19% of vehicles on site for 2 nights. 79% of recovered vehicles were on site for 4 nights or less. 5%, just 4 vehicles throughout the 8 month period above, were retained on site for 14 or more days. On average, 9 cars were stored on site during each month.

3.6 Therefore in addition to the request for a permanent planning permission the application seeks changes to the number of recovery vehicles permitted at the site (from 3 to 5 – being an additional flat-bed truck and a specialist fuel drain van), and to vary the current restriction on overnight storage to allow vehicles to be kept for longer but accepting that the currently unlimited number of vehicles awaiting collection be restricted to not more than 10 vehicles as a new planning condition. 3.7 In acknowledgement of the potential impact on neighbouring properties the planning statement indicates that the applicant would agree to provide additional landscaping to the south eastern boundary of the red line application area with the rear of dwellings in Longwalk and to accept a condition requiring details to be submitted and agreed within 3 months of the date of the decision and a separate condition to secure the planting taking place within the next available planting season.

3.8 The planning application form accompanying the application indicates that the company employs two full time staff but from a recent site inspection by the case officer and discussions with the proprietor (and having regard to the stated increased number of vehicles associated with the business) it is evident that there are in fact 5 full time staff of which 4 are drivers and one office based.

3.9 The supporting statement notes that the building (and the site) is within the Green Belt but simply indicates that national planning guidance (in the NPPF) supports the re-use of existing buildings but it is noted that there is no assessment in the statement of the potential impact on the openness of the Green Belt and no reference to whether very special circumstances apply to justify the use of land either on a temporary or permanent basis.

4. Development Plan and other Relevant Planning Policies and Guidance

4.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are other material considerations, the development plan should be the starting point, and other material considerations should be taken into account in reaching a decision. One such consideration will be whether the plan policies are relevant and up to date.

4.2 The Regional Strategy for the South East (the South East Plan) was partially revoked on 25 March 2013. Since then development plans across the former South East government office region have comprised local plans, and where they exist, neighbourhood plans.

4.3 The Borough Council has been in the process of preparing a new Local Plan (Core Strategy) to replace the adopted Local Plan First Review 1994 since 2005.

4.4 Following a number of public consultations, the Council submitted the Local Plan Core Strategy to the Secretary of State in May 2013. This was then examined by an independent Inspector and the Inspector’s Report was received in July 2014. The Inspector found that the Core Strategy is sound and provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough to 2028, providing a number of main modifications are made.

4.5 At the GBC Full Council meeting on 30 September 2014 the Council adopted the Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Map with immediate effect. The adopted Core Strategy incorporates all the modifications recommended by the Inspector in his Report and set out in the accompanying Schedule of Modifications and it also includes additional minor modifications. The policies in the adopted Core Strategy replace many of the Local Plan First Review saved policies and the First Review Proposals Map.

4.6 The Council also agreed that the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review (Deposit Version) (2000) should no longer be used as a material consideration for development control purposes.

4.7 The Development Plan for Gravesham therefore now comprises:-

 The Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2014)  Remaining Saved Policies of the Local Plan First Review (1994)  Saved Policies from the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plans.

4.8 There are a number of other planning policy documents which are of some relevance to the consideration of planning applications and are material considerations, including national planning advice and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), and supplementary planning guidance.

4.9 It should also be noted that the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan has recently been found ‘sound’ following examination and, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012), weight should be accorded the policies therein as appropriate.

4.10 There are currently no relevant adopted neighbourhood plans.

Local Planning Guidance

Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy, September 2014

4.11 The Core Strategy sets out the Council's spatial vision and strategic objectives for the Borough to 2028 and the policies which will deliver them. It identifies the main areas where major change is likely to take place and allocates sites which are key to achieving the strategy.

4.12 The application site is shown as being within a Green Belt area and fronting on to a primary distributor (Gravesend Road - A226) in the Gravesham Local Plan Policies Map.

4.13 Among the strategic objectives of particular note are SO1 - making the most efficient use of land by concentrating development on underused, derelict and previously developed land in the urban area of Gravesend and ; SO2 providing sufficient new homes to meet the future objectively assessed needs of the Borough’s population, to include provision for affordable homes, homes for smaller households and older people, and sites for travellers within the urban area and rural settlements inset from the Green Belt; SO8 - preserving the openness of the Green Belt, maintaining its national and local planning purposes and protecting it from inappropriate development; SO9 conserving and enhancing the diverse rural landscape including the Kent Downs AoNB and its setting; SO13 - protecting and enhancing the Borough’s heritage assets and historic environment; SO14 - ensuring that all new development makes a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the Borough, minimise the risk of crime, responds to climate change and integrates into the existing built, historic and natural environment; and SO17 - increasing accessibility, reducing the need to travel, minimising congestion and improving air quality.

4.14 The most relevant policies from the adopted Core Strategy in relation to this development are as follows:

Core Strategy Policy CS01: Sustainable Development Core Strategy Policy CS02: Scale and Distribution of Development Core Strategy Policy CS07: Economy, Employment and Skills Core Strategy Policy CS11: Transport Core Strategy Policy CS12: Green Infrastructure Core Strategy Policy CS19: Development and Design Principles

4.15 Policy CS01 (Sustainable Development) embeds the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in paragraph 14 of the NPPF in the Local Plan. Policy CS02 (Scale and Distribution of Development) makes a commitment to meeting the Borough’s objectively assessed need for 6,170 new dwellings over the plan period and outlines where new development will take place. Whilst prioritising the redevelopment and recycling of previously developed land in the urban area, development is also supported within those rural settlements inset from the Green Belt and defined on the Policies Map. Development outside those settlements will only be supported where it is compatible with national policies for protecting the Green Belt and other policies in the development plan.

4.16 Policy CS07 (Economy, Employment and Skills), amongst other things, gives support to proposals that promote the appropriate expansion and diversification of the rural economy. Support will be given to the conversion of rural buildings to employment use/live-work units where it is compatible with national policies for protecting the Green Belt and where it accords with policies in this plan, in particular relating to Green Infrastructure.

4.17 Policy CS11 (Transport) sets out that new developments should mitigate their impact on the highway and public transport networks as required and seeks to ensure sufficient car parking is provided in accordance with adopted car parking standards. Policy CS12 (Green Infrastructure) indicates that the overall landscape character and valued landscapes will be conserved, restored and enhanced taking account of the Gravesham Landscape Character Assessment.

4.18 Policy CS19 (Development and Design Principles) sets out detailed criteria against which the acceptability or otherwise of proposed development will be evaluated. In particular it requires new development to be visually attractive, fit for purpose and locally distinctive. It should conserve and enhance the character of the local built and natural environment and integrate well with the surrounding area. It requires new development to safeguard the amenity, including privacy, daylight and sunlight, of its occupants and those of neighbouring properties and land and avoid adverse environmental impacts from pollution. Proposals should include details of appropriate hard and soft landscaping, protect and where opportunities arise enhance biodiversity and provide appropriate facilities for the storage and disposal of waste.

Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994

4.19 The Gravesham Local Plan First Review was originally adopted in November 1994.

4.20 A substantial number of policies of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review were saved by a Direction dated 25 September 2007 of the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 (3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as transitional arrangements pending adoption of the Core Strategy.

4.21 Saved policies contained in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review should still be accorded significant weight, albeit that the weight accorded should be greater where policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, paragraph 215).

4.22 Those Local Plan First Review policies that remain in force are listed in Appendix 1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy. The remaining saved policies will be replaced following the adoption of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

4.23 The following remaining saved policies are relevant to the consideration of this application:

Policy C11: Change of use of redundant buildings in the Countryside Policy T1: Impact of Development on the Highway Network Policy T2: Channelling of Traffic onto the Primary and District Distributor Network Policy T3: Development Not Well Related to the Primary and District Distributor Network Policy T4: Development Outside the Built-Up Area Policy T5: New Accesses onto Highway Network Policy P3: Vehicle Parking Standards

4.24 Saved Policy C11 is of particular note. This indicates that conversion of farm buildings to other uses will be permitted in accordance with certain criteria, namely:

(i) It can be demonstrated that the building was originally erected as an agricultural building but is no longer needed for farming. (ii) The building is a substantial one, of permanent construction and is in an appropriate location in relation to roads and services. (iii) The building is attractive, in having some architectural, historic or landscape interest or being of a type representative of the Kent Countryside and the proposed alterations preserve that interest. (iv) The proposed use will diversify the rural economy and not result in the longer term dilution of farm viability*. (v) The curtilage is confined to the minimum necessary to operate the use. (vi) The nature and intensity of the proposed use is not detrimental to amenity or traffic safety.

* This will often rule out residential conversion

4.25 Saved Policy P3 indicates that development will be expected to make provision for vehicle parking in accordance with the KCC Vehicle Parking Standards. National Planning Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

4.26 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012, has replaced all the national planning policy guidance (PPG’s) and statements (PPS’s) and is a material consideration.

4.27 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) which means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

4.28 The NPPF includes (in paragraph 17) a set of 12 core land-use planning principles underpinning plan making and decision taking.

4.29 The core principles of relevance to this type of development include:

 supporting sustainable economic development to meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area  securing high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings;  taking account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of the main urban areas, protecting Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;

4.30 The following paragraphs are specifically highlighted as being of importance to the consideration of the application proposals, but it should not be taken that these are the only parts of the NPPF that need to be considered. Reference to the national planning guidance is also considered in the analysis section of this report.

4.31 Paragraph 21 of the NPPF gives support to sustainable economic growth and existing business sectors while paragraph 28 gives support to economic growth in rural areas and indicates that local pans should support sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

4.32 As the site is within the Green Belt paragraphs 79-92 in the NPPF are particularly relevant. Paragraph 79 sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

4.33 Paragraph 80 sets out the five purposes of Green Belts which in this context include to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. 4.34 Paragraph 83 indicates that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan, while paragraph 85 gives guidance on defining Green Belt boundaries and which includes that boundaries should be clearly defined, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

4.35 Paragraph 87 of the NPPF indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances while paragraph 88 indicates that local planning authorities when considering planning applications should give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

4.36 Paragraph 89 advises that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt but lists the six exceptions to this being:

 buildings for agriculture and forestry;  provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;  the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;  the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;  limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or  limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

4.37 The current proposal would not fall within any of these exceptions.

4.38 Paragraph 90 advises that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These include:  mineral extraction;  engineering operations;  local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location;  the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and  development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.

4.39 The proposed re-use of this building in the Green Belt per se would not be inappropriate and accord with bullet point 4 but subject to preserving openness and not conflicting with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. 4.40 However the associated external uses including open storage and parking etc. are more problematic. This is because the material change of use of land in the Green Belt is not specifically addressed in the NPPF. The Courts have considered this (Fordent Holdings Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Cheshire West and Cheshire Council [2013] EWHC 2844 (Admin); Timmins v Gedling Borough Council [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin); Timmins and Anor v Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 10). They have determined that because material changes of use are not specifically referred to in the NPPF they must, by definition, be inappropriate development and as a result, very special circumstances need to be shown to justify granting permission.

4.41 The Courts have also held that even if an application contains elements that on their own would be appropriate development (i.e. elements that meet the requirements of NPPF paragraphs 89 or 90), it does not mean that the whole development should be regarded as appropriate (For example Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd v First Secretary of State [2005] EWCA Civ 835, although this was a pre-NPPF decision).

The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

4.42 On the 6th of March 2014 a new web-based resource for Planning Practice Guidance was launched (http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/). It supports and clarifies areas in the NPPF and replaces a substantial list of guidance documents published from 1978-2013.

4.43 It contains guidance on assessing housing need; design; public consultation; open space provision in new development; travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking; health and wellbeing; water supply, wastewater and water quality; light pollution; determining a planning application; the use of planning conditions and viability, amongst other things.

4.44 The NPPG gives guidance on what is a material planning consideration in determining a planning application indicating that the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property or loss of private rights to light could not be material considerations.

4.45 The NPPG includes more detailed advice on the use of planning conditions (replacing the cancelled Circular 11/95). It outlines the six tests.

Supplementary Planning Guidance and other Documents

4.46 The Council has adopted a number of Supplementary Planning Guidance documents, Development Briefs and Conservation Area Appraisals. These elaborate on saved policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and policies in the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy and are material considerations in determining planning applications.

4.47 In addition the Council has adopted a number of documents that have been produced by Kent County Council also as Supplementary Guidance.

4.48 The following documents are relevant to the consideration of this application:  Adopted Kent Vehicle Parking Standards (SPG 4 published in 2003 and adopted in 2006)  Planning Policy for vehicular accesses to classified highways (Planning Guidance Note No 6)  Gravesham Landscape Character Assessment, May 2009

4.49 The application site lies within the Istead Arable Farmlands character area where the key characteristics are:

Gently undulating topography with open arable fields; Fields divided by tracks, roads and occasional hedgerows; Orchards to the east; Minor native woodland clumps; few roads, which are open in character; Istead Rise modern housing development; Clusters of properties and farmsteads; Large pylons.

5. Consultations, Publicity and Representations

Consultations

Planning Policy Manager

5.1 Considers that the retention of the use is contrary to Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy policies CS02, CS07, CS12 and CS19.

5.2 The proposal is, by definition, inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There is additional harm to the Green Belt from erosion of openness and encroachment into countryside which is one of the purposes of the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The very special circumstances needed to justify development that is harmful to the Green Belt, and any other harm, will not exist unless that harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The applicant has not demonstrated this.

5.3 Despite this, the site has been given temporary consent for three years so that its impact can be assessed and this is a material consideration in this decision.

5.4 Planning conditions have failed to control the use and during this time it has intensified and the applicant is seeking to expand the operation further by storing additional crash vehicles on the site and mixed fuel. There are concerns about the noise and disturbance that the use causes to the residential amenity of adjoining residents particularly with night call outs and deliveries. There are also concerns about the residential occupation of the building. Effective control of the future expansion and level of night time activity on the site would need to be secured to overcome these concerns.

Kent County Council Highways and Transportation

5.5 This application is for the renewal of an existing temporary consent to make it permanent and also to make minor amendments to the number of vehicles using, and being stored on the site. 5.6 There is no evidence to show that the existing operation, albeit not strictly in line with the existing permission in terms on the number of vehicles, has caused any highway issues to date.

5.7 The number of vehicles operating from the site by Highway Recovery Services is small – 5 according to the Planning Statement - and vehicle movements are likely to be spread throughout the day and night rather than at peak times. The impact on the highway network is therefore considered to be minimal. A restriction via Condition on the number of vehicles permitted to be stored on the site (10 at any one time is suggested by the applicant) would also mean the number of movements in and out would be restricted.

5.8 According to the Planning Statement, prior to the use of this site by HRS recovery vehicles were parked on-street which is permissible but not desirable so the use of the off-street parking/turning area has benefits in highway terms.

5.9 The access onto Downs Road is adequate with sufficient visibility in both directions, and routing to the main highway network via Downs Road and Upper Avenue to Wrotham Road is sufficient given the number of vehicle movements involved.

5.10 No highway objection is therefore raised to this application provided it is conditioned to restrict the number of operational vehicles to 5 and storage vehicles to 10 at any one time.

INFORMATIVE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure, before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents where required are obtained and that the limits of highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority. The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the works prior to commencement on site.

Senior Engineer, GBC

5.11 Not aware of any highway issues relating to the existing recovery operation at this site. Hence no objection is raised to its continued use.

GBC Regulatory Services

5.12 It is confirmed this Service has not received any complaints of nuisance relating to this use since temporary permission was given. Provided existing conditions are retained in any future permission this Service has no further comments to make.

Rural Planning Ltd (Council’s Agricultural Advisor)

5.13 The application relates to an existing use within and adjoining the building concerned (a single storey structure about 13.1m x 6.8m) which was allowed subject to conditions on a 3 year temporary basis, expiring on 28 February 2017, under 20130967. 5.14 Willerby Farm is an established arable unit with some 128 ha of associated land. There is a relatively compact range of other farm buildings near the office concerned, the three main ones being approx. 24m x 18m, 20m x 12m, and 12m x 12m.

5.15 The introduction, and continuation, of the additional non-agricultural office and vehicle storage uses within this farmstead should not have any significant adverse effect on the operation of the farm holding; rather, it appears a useful and relatively low-key means of diversification for the farm business.

5.16 Clearly the non-agricultural use itself (subject to appropriate conditions) needs to be acceptable otherwise in planning impact terms, but those issues would be outside the remit of Rural Planning Limited.

Environment Agency

5.17 The proposed development will only be acceptable if the measure(s) detailed in a non-mains drainage assessment submitted to support this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission.

5.18 Condition: The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved non-mains drainage assessment including the following specific mitigation measures detailed therein:

1. Surface water systems to be constructed to CIRIA SUDS guidance for surface water run-off. 2. Defra guidance and Binding rules for small scale sewage discharges must be followed. A permit may be required if discharges from a septic tank do not meet the binding rules. 3. No part of any infiltration system is within 10 metres of any ditch or watercourse. 4. No siting of the septic tank/ within 50 metres or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply. 5. Hard standing areas are suitable sealed and drained through appropriate pollution prevention measures.

Reasons: To protect the underlying groundwater from the risk of pollution and in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The site lies over a principal aquifer and is within an SPZ2 for an abstraction used for public supply.

This condition is required to ensure the development includes the appropriate mitigation identified in a non-mains drainage assessment as required under the small scale sewage discharge guidance. Without this condition the development would pose unacceptable risk to groundwater because the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Waste Regulation

5.19 Any waste transfer, deposit and/or treatment operations being undertaken on this development if not subject to any other exemptions or authorisations will require an Environmental Permit to be in compliance with the Environmental Permitting ( and Wales) Regulations 2010.The operator will need to demonstrate that all pollution risks are being managed appropriately at the site giving particular attention to the planning and management of transferred/imported materials and the protection of watercourses through the implementation of an approved site specific Environmental Management System. Additionally where a permit is required pre-application discussions will need to take place with this applicant where advice and guidance can be given regarding these proposed waste management activities. Additionally guidance on what is required of the applicant can also be found on the GOV.UK website at https://www.gov.uk/environmental-permit-how-to-apply

5.20 For any issues likely to be raised the applicant should contact Nina Williams [email protected] in the Kent Waste Team on 02084746767.

Kent Police, Crime Prevention Design Advisor

5.21 No comments

Kent Fire and Rescue Service

5.22 No comments received

Dartford Borough Council

5.23 No objection

Publicity

5.24 The application was advertised on site by a site notice under article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

In addition individual notification was sent to the owners/occupiers of 23 nearby dwellings.

5.25 Five neighbour objections have been received although three of the objections are from the same objector albeit setting out different reasons in the various representations.

5.26 There have been no representations received in support of the application.

5.27 The objections may be summarised as follows:

• Failure of the company to comply with the original temporary planning permission. • Disturbances including engines left running causing noise and fumes; inappropriate language and shouting; flashing lights at all hours. • There is noise and disturbance from deliveries during the night hours; other delivery vehicles come on to the site. • There is no need for vehicles to be left ticking over for taco calibration – this should be carried out by VOSA. • Vehicles are being stored for months – one vehicle has been stored on site for 7 months; it should only be for 24 hours. • There have been regularly 5 sign written vehicles on the site, not 3 as per the permission. • Fuel pumped from vehicles is being stored on the site in large quantities but the application form states no waste is stored. This is hazardous and a risk to residential properties. • Disagree that there is no presence of contamination as badly damaged vehicles pose a risk of leakage. • Vehicles parked on the site are visible from Downs Road. • It is alleged that the proprietor resides in the building on a permanent basis. • There are concerns that the building will become a dwelling. • Local residents have no recollection that the building is being used by farm staff. • The tree screening is provided by dwellings in Long Walk and they do not provide much screening in the winter. • It should not be local residents that have to screen their properties from the noise and activity. • It is alleged that residents have been advised if permission is not granted that the site would be occupied by travellers or as a storage container facility. • Concern about rate of expansion and intensification of the business and effectively ‘planning creep’. • An unrestricted business would result in the use of the site escalating to ‘Eddie Stobart’ levels. • Any relaxation of the previous condition will result in intensification. • Permissions should remain personal and not for the site. • There should be limits on the number of vehicles stored and the length of storage. • Any permission should be temporary as the application is effectively a revised one. • The operation of the business under the current restrictions would be accepted.

6. Planning Analysis and Service Manager (Development Management) Comments

Introduction and the Key Planning Considerations

6.1 The use of land and the use of a farm building at Willerby Farm, Downs Road were originally brought to the attention of the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team in July 2013 following a complaint that it was being used by a vehicle recovery business and the building was being lived in without the benefit of planning permission. The site was visited and it was established that a vehicle recovery business (HRS Ltd.) was operating from the farm office and restroom as its office and operating centre. The occupier was interviewed and confirmed that he had been sharing the use of the land and business with the farm since 2009 when the business was first established. It initially operated from a residential property in Longwalk Istead Rise with the vehicles being parked on the public highway but moved into the farm on a temporary basis in 2010 and on a full time basis in 2012.

6.2 A further meeting with the farm owner Mr Elliot and Mr Anderson (HRS Ltd) revealed that they shared the use of the building which was still used as the main farm office. Mr Anderson merely used the office area as a reception office for requests for highway recovery and periodically used the restroom to sleep in when returning from late night calls. It was pointed out that his business was a 24 hour operation and that he could receive requests of assistance from the police and other services such as the AA and RAC at all hours of the day. He also confirmed that he used the hard standing adjacent to the building to park his three vehicles – being two recovery vehicles and a van. Mr Elliott confirmed that the hard-standing was used for the parking and storage of agricultural machinery and lorries particularly during harvesting period. It was considered that the use constituted a material change of use for which permission was required and they were requested to submit an application to regularise matters.

6.3 A subsequent planning application (20130967) for the use of an agricultural building at Willerby Farm for part agricultural use and part use by a vehicle recovery firm was submitted in October 2013. Planning permission was granted on a temporary basis in February 2014 following a report to the Board at its meeting on 15 January 2014, a Member Site Inspection which was held on 25 January 2014 and subsequent report back to the Board meeting on 12 February 2014.

6.4 The planning permission runs for three years expiring on 28 February 2017 and was therefore intended to allow review of the operation and its local impact during the temporary permission. The applicant’s agent, in addition, has indicated that the temporary arrangement was also appropriate to ‘enable the business to assess its needs’.

6.5 Other planning conditions imposed include:

 A personal permission restricting the permission for the benefit of Willerby Farm and Mr. S. Anderson, trading as Highway Recovery Services (HRS) Ltd only

 No more than two recovery vehicles and van owned by HRS Ltd shall be parked or stored on the land at any one time in addition to any agricultural vehicles or machinery

 The site shall not be used for the storage or repair of any recovered vehicles at any time, other than normal overnight recovery.

6.6 The current proposal is in this case for a permanent permission and is also seeking variations to the terms of the temporary permission.

6.7 Although effectively the temporary planning permission has still some six months to run the applicants have submitted for an earlier determination as a result of current breaches of conditions relating to the number of vehicles being kept on the site, being an increase in the number of recovery vehicles from 3 to 5 vehicles and the length of period that vehicles may be stored, being longer than overnight.

6.8 The issues to consider in the determination of the application are:

 whether the use of the building and site, on a permanent basis, accords with adopted development plan policy;  whether the continued use would harm the character and appearance of the area, particularly having regard to the more recent intensification, both in the numbers of vehicles associated with the use and the length of storage;  whether the development would result in harm to local amenity by reason of noise and disturbance; and  whether there would be any harm to traffic safety

6.9 The Board will note that there are some objections from local residents in the vicinity of the site although surprisingly not to the extent that there was at the time of the previous application the subject of the temporary planning permission. Nevertheless these objections are material to the consideration of the application and in relation to the above planning and highway issues.

6.10 Broadly speaking the main neighbour concerns are about:

 noise and disturbance including at night time;  breaches of the current planning conditions and intensification; and  how the Council can effectively control the operation of the business

Principle of the Use and Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt

6.11 It is a material consideration that since the original temporary planning permission in 2013 the planning policy basis has changed with the adoption of the Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

6.12 As noted elsewhere in this report the reuse of agricultural buildings in the Green Belt is supported by national planning policy (NPPF) and local policy (CS02 of the Core Strategy and saved policy C11 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994) subject to meeting certain criteria.

6.13 Paragraph 90 of the NPPF sets out certain forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. This includes the re-use of buildings, provided the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction. The building in this case is considered to be of permanent and substantial construction.

6.14 As indicated earlier in this report the material change of use of land within the Green Belt is, on the other hand, not specifically identified as being appropriate development in the NPPF. The use of the adjoining piece of land for parking of recovery vehicles and storing recovered vehicles in connection with the office use would therefore be considered as inappropriate development. As set out in paragraph 87 of the NPPF, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

6.15 It should also be noted that the Courts have held that even if an application contains elements that on their own would be appropriate development (i.e. the re-use of the building), it does not mean that the whole development should be regarded as appropriate. It would appear that this was not the view taken when the original application was considered as reference was only made to the change of use of the building and not the land.

6.16 The NPPF notes that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and permanence; the purposes of including land in the Green Belt include assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

6.17 There are already a number of buildings on Willerby Farm, the most recent being a machine store erected between 2005 and 2007. These in themselves reduce openness. While it would appear that the yard has been used for storage purposes in the past, this has not been extensive and has been ancillary to the agricultural use and therefore not inappropriate.

6.18 The introduction of parking for a number of recovery vehicles, a storage area for crash vehicles and a container to store mixed fuel in connection with the office use introduces a non-agricultural activity onto this site. This activity will have the effect of intensifying the developed character of the site and therefore reducing openness. Given the site’s location in the rural area outside the built up extent of Istead Rise, this would represent an encroachment into the countryside. As such the intensification and permanent retention of the use is contrary to Core Strategy policies CS02 and CS07 and the NPPF.

6.19 The applicant’s submission and notably the supporting planning statement makes no assessment of the impact of the development on the openness and the purposes of the Green Belt with only a passing reference to the NPPF supporting the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt and no reference to whether very special circumstances apply to justify the use either on a temporary or permanent basis.

6.20 Furthermore the plan submitted with the application is not sufficiently detailed to enable a proper assessment of the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt as it provides no information about the extent of the parking and storage areas and what is the extent of remaining green space within the site.

Temporary Permissions

6.21 It is noted that in recognition of the issues and the likely impact that the development may have that only a temporary permission was granted and that the application now seeks a permanent planning permission. The fact that a temporary planning permission has previously been granted for the development, albeit to perhaps a lesser intensity, is a material consideration.

6.22 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) indicates that, “A condition limiting use to a temporary period only where the proposed development complies with the development plan or where material considerations indicate otherwise that planning permission should be granted, will rarely pass the test of necessity.”

In this case it is argued that notwithstanding policy support for the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt the overall use of the site (building and external areas are not policy compliant)

The NPPG does however further say:

“Circumstances where a temporary permission may be appropriate include where a trial run is needed in order to assess the effect of the development on the area or where it is expected that the planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of that period.”

6.23 In respect of further temporary permissions it states:

“It will rarely be justifiable to grant a second temporary permission – further permissions should normally be granted permanently or refused if there is clear justification for doing so. There is no presumption that a temporary grant of planning permission should be granted permanently.”

Rural Diversification

6.24 Whilst the impact of the development on the Green Belt is a fundamental consideration conversely planning policies national and locally (notably saved policy C11) support the reuse of farm buildings to support the rural economy and the effective use of land and buildings.

6.25 Within the rural area this can assist the rural economy to diversify while reducing the need for greenfield development and new buildings in the Green Belt. A balance, however, needs to be struck between encouraging proposals that support the rural economy and the need to protect the rural area from the effects of changes of use or any increased levels of activity.

6.26 Core Strategy Policy CS07 (Employment, Economy and Skills) promotes the appropriate expansion and diversification of the rural area economy including supporting the re-use of rural buildings to employment use where it is compatible with national Green Belt policy and the policy in respect of Green Infrastructure.

6.27 The Board will note that the Council’s Agricultural Advisor has highlighted that the use appears a useful and relatively low-key means of diversification for the farm business

6.28 In this particular case there is likely to be a financial benefit to the landowner from the use of the site and some employment benefits. The use does not however necessarily support the rural economy in any demonstrable way and it does not provide a service or a direct benefit to the local rural community within which it is based. The use arguably could be based anywhere, it is not essential for it to be in the rural area; the key requirement is to be close to the highway network. The proposed use does not accord with Core Strategy policy CS07. Permitted Development Rights

6.29 It is acknowledged that under planning current legislation (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015, as amended) permitted development rights to use agricultural buildings in the countryside without the requirement for planning permission are now more extensive. Under Part 3 of Schedule 2 (Changes of Use) and specifically under Class R it is permitted development to change the use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a flexible use (including Class B1 (Business) or Class B8 (Storage)) subject to limitations and conditions, including consideration of transport and highway impacts, noise impacts, contamination risks and flooding risks. Similarly under Class Q it is now permitted development to change the use of building or land from a use as an agricultural building to a dwelling house but also subject to similar limitations and conditions and subject to prior approval requirements.

6.30 However in this case permitted development rights would not apply as the use of this particular building when it was granted planning permission in 1991 was the subject of a planning condition limiting its use only as an office/canteen/restroom and amenity building in connection with the farming unit and not for use either temporarily or permanently for living accommodation. However such restrictions would not necessarily apply to the other buildings at this yard and which could benefit from permitted development rights for other uses and which could be for similar business type uses as proposed in the current application.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Locality

6.31 The site lies within the Istead Arable Farmlands landscape character area. In the main, it is characterised by gently undulating topography with open arable fields, native woodland clumps, occasional hedgerows, clusters of properties and farmsteads and Istead Rise modern housing development. Core strategy policy CS12 seeks to ensure that landscape character is conserved, restored and enhanced. Policy CS19 seeks to ensure that new development is visually attractive, fit for purpose and locally distinctive. It should conserve and enhance the character of the local built, historic and natural environment and integrate well with the surrounding local area.

6.32 The site is part of a farm complex on the edge of Istead Rise. There is a distinct change in the character between the scale and industrial type character of the agricultural buildings on Willerby Farm and their layout and the dense suburban residential development to the north, east and south - east. To the north-west and south west are open fields in agricultural use with hedgerow and woodland boundaries. The land rises to the west. There is a public footpath to the south west of the site which crosses the agricultural land from New Barn.

6.33 The site marks the transition between the suburban residential development found in Istead Rise and the open countryside beyond. The retention and intensification of the recovery use and the increase in the number of crash vehicles it is proposed to store on the site will effectively introduce a car park onto the site and intensify the site’s use. This is an urban feature and use which is arguably out of place within an agricultural setting. It will detract from the agricultural character of the site and the landscape character of the adjoining countryside. The proposal will not be visually attractive or integrate with the adjoining residential development.

6.34 It is noted in the representations from local residents that they suggest that the vehicles associated with the use can be seen from outside of the site in Downs Road.

6.35 As such the proposal is contrary to policies CS12 and CS19 of the Local Plan Core Strategy in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the locality.

Impact on Local Amenity

6.36 The Board will note that there are representations from local residents objecting to the development notably on the noise and disturbance from the operation of the business and the night-time activity.

6.37 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out core planning principles. In particular it states that ….planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. This principle is embedded in Core Strategy Policy CS19 (Development and Design Principles) which seeks to ensure that new development is visually attractive, fit for purpose and locally distinctive. It conserves and enhance the character of the local built, historic and natural environment, and integrate well with the surrounding local area. In particular the policy seeks to ensure that development safeguards the amenity of occupants of neighbouring properties and protect them from adverse environmental impacts including noise and general disturbance.

6.38 The site backs onto residential properties in Longwalk. Consideration needs to be given to the impact of the disturbance on residential amenity associated with vehicles and arriving and leaving the site and offloading vehicles, particularly during the evening/night and at weekends.

6.39 Activity appears to have increased since the use first started and it is unclear as to the number of other recovery drivers who are using the site, maybe not to park their vehicles on a long terms basis but to drop off crash vehicles or stop overnight. This needs to be fully understood, as there is a potential for this aspect to grow which may be difficult to control going forward.

6.40 It also appears that during the term of the current temporary permission the business has expanded to include a service of misfuel assistance which requires the provision of storage of mixed fuel within a shipping container on the site. The application provides no details of this or its potential impact.

Highway Safety

6.41 In traffic terms the Board will note that no objections on highway safety terms (to the use of the access or on access visibility reasons) or highway impact terms (in terms of traffic generation) are raised by either Kent Highways and Transportation or the Borough Council’s Senior Engineer. In the absence of any technical objections and therefore any highway policy reasons grounds of refusal for highway reasons could not be justified or able to be substantiated. 6.42 That said it should be noted that the application is not supported by any technical highway information beyond a breakdown of the numbers of vehicles that have been stored on the site awaiting collection during an 8 month period of the current temporary planning permission. There is no information of the number of vehicle movements associated with the site, the frequency of movements, the number of movements during the night time when there is likely to be the most disturbance to adjoining local residents and the frequency of any deliveries that are not necessarily associated with the company operation.

6.43 Although it is acknowledged that the farm use itself may have generated vehicle movements including the movement and use of farm machinery and heavy good vehicles related to harvesting and other seasonal agricultural events it is not clear how these would compare with the current operation.

7. Conclusions

7.1 An analysis of the current proposal in relation to adopted planning policy and national planning advice as well as consideration of the local representations in response to the proposal would suggest that the development as now proposed and seemingly a more intensified form of operation (albeit that this appears to already be happening) would not be in conformity with established planning policies particularly in relation to the location of the site being within the Green Belt.

7.2 Notwithstanding that there is a clear identified conflict with adopted planning policy and notably the impact on the openness of the Green Belt nevertheless the Borough Council has previously granted a temporary planning permission in order to allow review of the operation and its local impact during the temporary period which would suggest that the Council saw some merit in the operation of the business in this location and no doubt as a suitable reuse of a farm buildings as a way of supporting the rural economy and this is a material consideration. It is likely that at that time it was considered that the operation would be reasonably low key but the concerns emanating from the intensification and non-conformity with the planning conditions imposed and taking into account the objections received from local residents are whether it is possible to maintain a low key operation but recognising the business needs of the operation that does not materially impact on local amenity, does not harm the character and appearance of the semi-rural location and does not harm the openness of the Green Belt.

7.3 On balance and in weighing all the conflicting issues it is recommended that the decision be DEFERRED and that additional information is essential before a final decision can be made including:

 Submission of a detailed assessment from the applicants of the impact of the re-use of the building and it associated uses on the Green Belt including impact on openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and whether very special circumstances apply to justify the use of the land either on a temporary or permanent basis.

 Submission of a block plan from the applicants showing the precise area that is used for the parking/storage of recovery vehicles, the parking of the various business vehicles and any other available or used area for staff vehicles together with any other storage areas on the site; and that such uses do not result in any additional extent of hardstanding on the site together with the detailed extent of any landscaped or green areas within the site.

 Confirmation of the number of staff that are employed by the company.

 Details of the extent of and frequency of use of the building for overnight accommodation.

 Confirmation of the extent of the shared use of the building in view of observations that suggest that the building does not appear to be used for farm workers.

 Additional information about all traffic movements associated with the use of the premises.

 Details and information about the number of other recovery drivers who are using the site, maybe not to park their vehicles on a long terms basis but to drop off crash vehicles or stop overnight.

 Additional information from the applicants in relation to the fuel storage facility on the site and a response from the Environment Agency over the safety and licensing arrangements relating to such storage; including the frequency of use, storage times and the method of disposal.

 Submission of a non mains drainage assessment.

------

RECOMMENDATION

DEFERRED for further information and subsequent assessment