SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE APRIL 2011 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE APRIL 2011 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION"

Transcription

1 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL Item No 5(f) PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE APRIL 2011 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 10/01678/FUL OFFICER: WARD: PROPOSAL: SITE: APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Colm McKee Jedburgh and District Erection of grain storage building Upper Nisbet Farm Robert Neil & Partners John Thorburn & Sons SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is located within the working farm of Upper Nisbet. The farm buildings are located approximately 1.7km to the North East of Nisbet, on the Nisbet to Roxburgh road. The proposed site is on agricultural land to the North of the existing farm buildings. The application site measures approximately 104 m x 64m. There is a track along the East boundary of the identified site. The houses to the East comprise of 3 sets of semi detached houses (1-6 Upper Nisbet Farm Cottages). The rear of these properties face onto the site. These properties have outbuildings to the rear. There is a small amount of curtilage to the rear of these dwellings that are used for parking and access. The site rises to the North and North West. The North, East and South of the site are bound by post and wire fencing. There is no boundary treatment to the West of the site where it joins to agricultural land. There is a silage pit to the South West of the site. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: This application proposes a grain store with associated drier to be positioned within the site. To accommodate this store, excavation would have to be carried out in order to provide a level surface for the development. In response to a request, additional sectional drawing has been submitted to show ground levels in relation to the dwellings. A level platform would be created of approximately 55 x 65m. This would result in banking to the North, West and South of the site. The platform would be to ground level to m, which relates to the ground level of the nearest dwelling of approximately m Planning and Building Standards Committee 1

2 The application as originally submitted proposed that the building would be positioned approximately 45m from the housing. The case officer requested the building be re-sited to provide a greater distance between the two. Amended plans have been received and the proposed distance is now approximately 60m from the rear of the nearest dwelling (50m from the rear boundary of the dwelling). The grain store of the building would be of standard agricultural form. The main footprint of the building would be 49m (length) x 24.5m (span). The height of the building would be 10.5m above the ground platform level. There would be a small control room to the building to the South side of the front face of the building. There would be fire escape ladder and Louver vent on the North West elevation of the building. There would be a 6m span roller door on the South East elevation. To the front of the store (South West) there would be an attached sloped roof section. Footprint would be 18 x 9m. Height would be approximately 9.50m. This would be positioned 6m perpendicular to the South East gable wall of the store. The drier building would be open sided on the South West (front) and North West (side) face. The side closest to the houses would be closed with steel profile cladding and concrete. Finishing materials for the building would be green steel profile sheeting and concrete panels. To the South East gable of the store there would be a hardcore yard and vehicle turning area. The application proposes a screening beech hedge to be planted to the South East boundary of the site. Note: initially the proposals included a weighbridge. The weighbridge is considered agricultural permitted development and therefore does not form part of this application. Amended plans were submitted that omitted the weighbridge. The applicant has confirmed that the weighbridge is for agricultural use within the farm and not a public weighbridge. A public weighbridge would require an application for a change of use of land. PLANNING HISTORY: N/A SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS: Objections 19 letters of objection have been received. The objections are summarised as follows: The weighbridge will be available for use by parties from outwith the farm There will be a significant increase in farm and heavy goods traffic in the area The proposal will have a negative impact on the quality of life in the area A consultant employed by the objector and has commented suggested there are a number of mistakes / discrepancies on the completed application form The proposal poses a roads danger An Impact Assessment should be carried out on air quality and traffic Development might impinge upon the quality of life and/or health and safety of the local population Planning and Building Standards Committee 2

3 Will impact on tourism of the area Impact the store would have on the view from what he describes as the front of the houses and the impact it would have on evening light. Extra traffic generation on Nisbet to Roxburgh Road Weighbridge and drier will possibly be used by other farms will increase loading on road Threat to children playing Concerns over health of those living in the vicinity due to dust Impact of dust on residents cars and houses The grain store is too close to the row of cottages The proposed grain store has access capacity for the farm and the farmer has intimated he will be drying grain for neighbouring farmers Noise increase Impact on Air Quality Increase in traffic Letters of support: Three letters of support have been received in relation to this application. The letters of support are summarised as follows: A misleading campaign has been organised The application is for a new grain storage building incorporating a drier which will be used for drying grain only from fields within the control of Mr Neil and not for commercial use The shed will be cut into the bank to reduce its visual impact The building is roofed and this should limit dust There is a weighbridge but this is not for public use The erection of the building will result in the reduction of traffic The neighbouring cottages and farm will benefit from the development as at present a mobile grain dryer powered by a tractor is currently being used: the current operation is noisy and produces a large amount of dust The proposal will enhance the farm The proposal shows commitment to the future of Scottish Borders Agriculture This is a valuable project for the business and the local community Additional Third Party Comments Michael Moore MP: A letter from the local MP was received. This letter asked the Department if they were aware of the constituents concerns. A response has been issued. Other matters raised in representations include: Impact of the development on Nisbet village due to the increase in heavy vehicles on narrow roads An 8.5 ton limit existing on the Teviot Bridge Asked if there would be an increase to air quality in the locality There is no speed limit, no street lighting and no pavements through Nisbet Danger to walkers, cyclists, and horse riders Planning and Building Standards Committee 3

4 Applicants Supporting Information The agent submitted a letter justifying why this site was the most suitable within the farm. The reasoning behind the selection of this site is that the surrounding land in the locality has a steep slope and would not be viable to use due to the amount of excavation work, new roads and services which would be required. The site is better positioned for access, road drainage and services that are required. The site would require less ground work than other sites within the farmland. A letter was also submitted by the agent in relation to comments made on the objection letters: Single storage shed will negate the necessity to move grain around to the extent that it currently is The grain drier would be housed in the lean-to section of the proposed shed with a dust extraction kit to reduce dust. The grain dryer will be partially enclosed in a lean-to shed thus reducing dust and noise The existing mobile grain drier is tractor powered. The proposed new drier is electric powered and therefore the noise will be less than at present. Overall the design has been considered to reduce disruption during harvests CONSULTATION RESPONSES: Community Council: No objections. Roads User Manager: The Roads Officer s comments are summarised as follows: 21 st February 2011 The proposed storage and drying facilities will do away with the requirement of taking the majority of the harvested crop to and from Ploughlands for storage, drying and use, therefore will result in decrease in traffic. Objection letters have centred on the use of the weighbridge. The applicant has stated this is for private use. The farm is in a rural location and the traffic movements are those which would be associated with such a location and as such, this should be taken into account when buying or renting a property adjacent to a working farm No objections however any approval should be conditioned so as to ensure that the proposed facilities are for the sole use of the land within the ownership/control of the applicant. 29 th March 2011 The Roads Officer has spoken to both the applicant and agent and both have confirmed that all material excavated to accommodate this building will be deposited within the farmland under the control of the applicant. It is proposed that no material will be removed off-site and therefore there shall be no additional traffic on the roads surrounding the application site as a result of these works. The Officer s previous recommendation still stands. Environmental Health: The Environmental Health Officers Comments are summarised as follows: Planning and Building Standards Committee 4

5 The applicant has provided sufficient information to indicate that there will be no statutory dust nuisance as a result of the development. A standard conditions requiring statutory light nuisance is required to be attached to any consent A standard condition in relation to noise nuisance is required to be attached to any consent DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES: Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy EP5 Air Quality OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: None KEY PLANNING ISSUES: The main planning issue is whether: The proposed development would have a measurable detrimental impact on the neighbouring amenity of the area and therefore be contrary to relevant Local Plan Policies G1 (Quality Standards for New Development), H2 (Protection of Residential Amenity) and EP5 (Air Quality) ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION: The application must be assessed against Policy G1 (Quality Standards for New Development) and Policy H2 (Protection of Residential Amenity). Policy G1 states that the standards which apply to all development are that it is compatible with, and respects the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses, and neighbouring built form. Policy H2 notes development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas (particularly in terms of the generation of traffic or noise) will not be permitted. As the development proposes a grain drier, the application must be assessed against Policy ED5 (Air Quality). ED5 states that development proposals, individually or cumulatively, could adversely affect the quality of air in the locality to a level that could potentially hard human health and wellbeing or the integrity of the natural environment. Weighbridge A weighbridge for agricultural use would be permitted development, as it not for public use, which has been confirmed by the agent. The majority of the objections refer to the use of the public weighbridge. The weighbridge does not form part of this application and will not be considered during the assessment. The applicant is aware if the weighbridge was ever proposed for public use an application would need to be submitted. Planning and Building Standards Committee 5

6 Traffic Increase in traffic / Road Safety The applicant has demonstrated the introduction of the grain storage shed will actually reduce the traffic within the farm land, as vehicles will not need to leave the farm with loads of grain for drying. It is not considered there will be an increase in traffic due to this proposal. The Roads Officer does not object to the application on the basis there will be a decrease in farm traffic. The Roads Officer has stated he would not wish to see the drying and storage facilities to become open for use which could result in additional heavy traffic using the surrounding road network. This can be addressed through an attached condition. Impact on residential amenity: Noise Environmental Health does not object on the grounds of noise and have requested conditions are attached to protect the residential amenity of the area: 1. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling; and 2. The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. The applicant has confirmed the grain drier will be placed in the lean-to section of the building with the fan assembly pointing away from the domestic buildings. Subject to these conditions being attached, the residents will be protected from potential noise nuisance. Impact on air quality / Dust Environmental Health sought further information regarding the design, installation, maintenance and operation, description of operations involved with the grain storage and dryer. This information was provided and subsequently Environmental Health have commented that, as far as reasonably practical, the activities proposed to be undertaken at the development will not have an adverse impact on neighbouring premises as far as dust is concerned. Artificial Light This issue was not raised specifically by any objection however has been identified by Environmental Health. In order to minimise the effect that any proposed external lighting may have on any neighbouring properties and the area surrounding the development, the following condition should be applied: Any external lighting provided to the development should be installed under the direction/supervision of a suitably qualified or competent person (e.g. a member of The Institution of Lighting Engineers) and/or, during the installation of any external lighting, the obtrusive light limitations for exterior lighting installations detailed in The Institution of Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light should be applied/adopted. Visual Impact From the level drawings that have been provided, it is not considered the proposed unit would be visually intrusive. The unit is some 60m from the rear of the dwellings and although the building Planning and Building Standards Committee 6

7 may be visible from the rear extension window of number 5, it could not be considered to have a detrimental impact by way of overshadowing or outlook, given the separation distance now proposed. Some comments noted the building was to the front of the cottages. However, the principal elevation and gardens of the houses is to the west, away from the application site and therefore their outlook and private amenity and would be largely unaffected. Furthermore, when the standards relating to sunlight guidance are applied to this case, it demonstrates there would be no detrimental impact to the rear of the residential properties in the locality by way of impact on sunlight. In the wider landscape, the proposed building would be interpreted as forming part of the building group and farm complex. The existing group is about 900 metres from the public road and is not especially prominent as a result of the distance, combined with the intervening landforms and vegetation. There are therefore no objections on landscape grounds. Other Issues Some issues have been identified as disparities and inaccuracies on the application form. Of these comments, the relevant issues have been addressed during the processing of the application. Additional plans and information have been submitted by the agent and the correct neighbour notification has been carried out. A number of alternative schemes were suggested as being beneficial for both the applicant and the residents. However, these have not been formally submitted and the Council must therefore consider the scheme that is before it. The applicant was challenged to provide a justification for the site selection and following discussion has relocated the building further to the west As a result, the revised scheme submitted by the applicant s agent is considered acceptable and the agent has made the changes requested in order to address concerns raised during consideration. It is not appropriate to refuse an application because other, more desirable, sites are available, particularly if the submitted scheme is not, in itself, unacceptable. Summary This application is for agricultural use within the land of an existing working farm. The proposal for an agricultural building on this farm is considered to be compatible with and respects the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is appropriate to the working farm. There are residential units within the locality although it must be noted that this area is not exclusively residential. The agent has demonstrated this is the most appropriate site within the farm for operational purposes while minimising impact on adjoining residents. Furthermore, the agent has provided evidence to suggest that there will not be a detrimental impact by way of increased traffic to the farm or within the locality. The Roads Officer does not object. Environmental Health does not object to this application and can support the proposals subject to the attached conditions. The applicant has made changes to the proposed layout and siting as requested by the Department, thus mitigating potential negative impacts on the locality. Additionally, conditions can be attached to mitigate any potential impact and protect the residential amenity. Planning and Building Standards Committee 7

8 CONCLUSION Subject to the attached conditions, it is not considered the proposal would impact upon the residential amenity of the area and is therefore compliant with Policies G1 (Quality Standards for New development) and H2 (Protection of residential amenity). There will not be a detrimental impact by way of dust and therefore the proposal is considered complaint with Local Plan Policy EP5 (Air Quality). RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES: This application is recommend for approval subject to the attached conditions and informatives: Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area. 3. The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area. 4. Any external lighting provided to the development should be installed under the direction/supervision of a suitably qualified or competent person (e.g. a member of The Institution of Lighting Engineers) and/or, during the installation of any external lighting, the obtrusive light limitations for exterior lighting installations detailed in The Institution of Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light should be applied/adopted. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area. 5. A sample of the paint colour to be used on the exterior surface of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved scheme to be implemented as part of the development. Reason: The paint colour of the exterior surface requires further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting. 6. The development hereby permitted shall be used only in relation to farming activities associated with Upper Nisbet Farm or within the ownership and control of the applicant. Reason: In the interests of Road Safety. Informative The applicant is reminded that irrespective of any Planning Approvals granted, they are still subject to separate statutory Environmental Health legislation. The relevant environmental health legislation section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act The Environmental Health Department of Scottish Borders Council is responsible for the investigation of any complaints/situations that could amount to being a statutory nuisance as defined in section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act Environmental Health s comments can be attached for the information of the applicant. Planning and Building Standards Committee 8

9 Approved by Name Brian Frater Designation Head of Planning and Regulatory Services The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council. Author(s) Name Designation Colm McKee Planning Officer Planning and Building Standards Committee 9

10 Planning and Building Standards Committee 10