Agenda item

NED/22/01004/FL - MIDDLE HANDLEY

Change of use of existing land to accommodate additional car parking and relocation of existing stable at the Devonshire Arms, Westfield Lane, Middle Handley.

 

(Planning Manager Development Manager)

Minutes:

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for the change of use of existing land to accommodate additional car parking and the relocation of an existing stable at the Devonshire Arms, Westfield Lane, Middle Handley. The Application had been referred to the Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor A Dale, so that Planning Committee could assess the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt.

 

Planning Committee was recommended to refuse the Application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

 

Officers felt that this would be an inappropriate development that would harm the openness of the Green Belt. They considered the possible level of harm to be significant, due to the size of the proposed new car park and the  position of the relocated stable building. They concluded that as there were no ‘very special circumstances’ to outweigh the harm which the development would cause, the application should be refused. 

 

Before Committee considered the Application it heard from the Agent for the Application, J Stannard. No one spoke against the Application.

 

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the Principle of Development and in particular, the site’s location outside of any defined Settlement Development Limit, within open countryside and the Green Belt. It considered the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy Local Plan Policy SS1, requiring sustainable development, Local Plan Policy SS9, on the categories of development permissible in countryside areas and Local Plan Policy SS10, regarding development within the Green Belt.  It also took into account Local Plan Policy SDC3 on the need for new developments not to harm the character, quality, and distinctiveness of the landscape.

 

Members discussed the Application.  They considered the potential social and economic benefits to the local economy and community if the car park was installed. They discussed the possible impact on road safety if the additional car parking spaces were not provided. Some Members felt that these benefits would be grounds for approving the Application. Other Members contended that although welcome, the economic and social benefits would not constitute the very special grounds under Planning Policy that would permit the development.

 

At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor D Ruff and W Armitage moved and seconded a Motion to refuse the Application in line with officer recommendations. The motion was put to the vote and was approved.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Application be refused, in line with officer recommendations.

 

Reasons

 

Policy SS10 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan states that proposals for engineering operations may not be inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with its purposes. The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that material changes in the use of land are likewise acceptable subject to the same caveats. 

 

Inappropriate development is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

 

In this case, the proposed car park comprises both a change in the use of land and engineering operations. By reason of the levelling of the land, the physical parking of vehicles, the activity associated with the site for the parking of vehicles and the need for an acoustic fence, the new car park would impact on the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt and encroach into the countryside.

 

No very special circumstances have been identified that outweigh the harm that would be caused.

Supporting documents: