DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:

2 May 2006 06/00112/FUL A18 26 June 2006

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR HIGHER MOOR HEAD BUNGALOW THE ERECTION OF A SAND BLASTING RAKEHOUSE BROW CONTRACTORS DEPOT QUERNMORE LANCASTER LA2 0QS APPLICANT: AGENT:

Mr Darren Atkinson Melanie Lawrenson The Bungalow Higher Moor Head Quernmore LA2 0QS

REASON FOR DELAY

Awaiting consultation responses.

PARISH NOTIFICATION

No response received.

LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE

Lancaster District Local Plan - The site is within a Countryside Area, within the A.O.N.B.

STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS

County Highways - Questions the sustainability of locating a B1 use in this remote location. Access visibility would need to be improved.

Environmental Health Officer - Has serious concerns about the impact of sandblasting at this site on the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. Various operating conditions suggested.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED

Four letters have been received from local residents objecting to this proposal on the following grounds:-

The building is not necessary for the purpose applied for, as the applicant already owns five further buildings which are no longer required as the farm is now redundant. This new building in the A.O.N.B. is not needed for any agricultural or other purpose appropriate to the rural area.

The approach to this farm group, which now contains three other dwellings, now resembles an industrial estate in a highly visible and sensitive upland location.

The building was used for the fabrication of steel framed buildings, with the external storage of materials and equipment and with an external generator until this application was submitted.

The proposed use has been carried out for some time in other existing buildings along with sandblasting, mechanics workshop, tool hire storage and caravan storage causing severe nuisance from noise, fumes, smoke and dust.

Continuous movements of large HGV's damage the access driveway, which is owned by the Duke of Westminster, making access difficult for private cars.

Concern about the risk of pollution of the domestic borehole water supply.

REPORT

Location

This site is located in open upland countryside in the west side of the Bowland fells between Quernmore and to the south of the tower. It is adjacent to a group of existing ex agricultural buildings of modern construction and beyond them lies the original range of Grade II listed farm buildings now converted to dwellings. Beyond these lies the applicant's modern bungalow. The site and its setting is heavily overlooked from the elevated public highway (Rakehouse Brow) and a public footpath which runs along the access track and through the farm buildings group.

The Proposed Development

This proposal is a full application to regularise the construction of a modern, low roofed portal framed building, with natural exposed block walls and a natural cement fibre roof. The building is to be used for the storage of sandblasting machinery and equipment for use off site (ie. a sandblasting contractors operational depot). The building is 27.4m long by 9.1m wide, 3.6 m high to the ridge and is erected on the concrete base of a previously existing and similar sized timber poultry cabin. Between it and the access track lies two smaller sized concrete hardstanding areas which previously supported the smaller poultry cabins. On the other side of the track two larger timber poultry cabins are located.

Policy Matters

Policy EC4 of the Local Plan (other rural employment sites) states that (in the countryside) employment development will normally be directed to identified rural settlements. Exceptionally, appropriate development may be allowed adjacent to or outside villages, if it meets a clear local need and where it:-

i) is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping; ii) would not be detrimental to neighbouring residential amenities; iii) has satisfactory access arrangements; iv) has satisfactory sewerage arrangements; v) does not generate unacceptable levels or types of traffic on rural roads; vi) does not adversely affect nature conservation interests and particular attention will be paid to the appearance and impacts of employment development affecting the Forest of Bowland and Arnside/Silverdale A.O.N.B's

Whilst the applicant or his family have retained ownership of the surrounding land, this does not appear to have been a working farm for some considerable time. Policy E21 (Agricultural Diversification) therefore does not apply in this case. However, the Landscape Protection policies E3 and E4 relating to

the A.O.N.B's and the Countryside Areas do apply and do not permit development which would have a significant adverse effect upon the character or landscape quality of those areas.

Although the applicant resides at Higher Moor Head Bungalow and clearly has access to sufficient agricultural land and buildings to satisfy his present business needs, this activity is of a purely industrial nature. The site of the former poultry cabin cannot be regarded in planning terms as a previously developed "brownfield" site. The retention of this newly and purposely constructed industrial building and its associated commercial/industrial use on this site therefore fall to be considered in the light of the provisions of Policies EC4, E3 and E4.

Conclusion

In this case, neither the building or the use are required to support any proven local need, the building is not appropriate to its surroundings in terms of its siting, design, materials, external appearance or landscaping; and in this exposed and prominent upland is detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside and contrary to the aims and objectives of the A.O.N.B. The building and its use in this location at the entrance to the farm complex are detrimental to neighbouring amenities and the setting of the Listed Buildings. The use generates unnecessary and inappropriate HGV movements on the rural road network which is detrimental to the character and appearance of the A.O.N.B. and the countryside area in general and contrary to the interests of sustainability.

It is considered therefore, that convenient as this development might be for the applicant, it seriously conflicts with the policies of the Local Plan and with National Planning Guidance and its retention would set a strong precedent for further inappropriate and unnecessary commercial and industrial developments throughout the rural area which would become difficult to refuse. There do not appear, in this case, to be any circumstances which would justify the continued acceptance of such injury to issues of accepted importance.

In the light of the above, Committee are strongly advised that this application be resisted and appropriate action taken to secure the removal of both the building and use from this site.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. Conflict with Policies EC4, E3 and E4 and Para. 5.7.14 of the Lancaster District Local Plan – detrimental to the character and appearance of the A.O.N.B.

2. Inappropriate and unnecessary sporadic commercial development in the A.O.N.B.

3. Detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.

4. Inappropriate traffic generator contrary to the aims of the A.O.N.B. and the interests of sustainability.

5. Detrimental to the setting and character of the adjacent Listed Building.