Industrial storage building at The Barn, Radwell, Baldock

What was proposed

The application sought a replacement industrial storage building, external lighting and material storage up to six metres, after development had started.

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached industrial storage building following demolition of two existing industrial storage buildings and installation of external lighting and increase in material storage height to 6.0m. (Development has commenced) at this established site. The replacement storage building would be approximately 43.1m by 18.6m with a dual- pitched roof, 7m to eaves and 9.3m to ridge. The floor space would be approx.”

“The lighting consists of 9 x 13m high poles, and one 30m high pole.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier applications permitted storage buildings, open storage and other uses, while an electric vehicle charging application was withdrawn.

“21/03160/FP - Use of site for open storage (use class - B8 (storage and distribution)) including installation of hardstanding, associated landscaping and infrastructure. Conditional Permission.”

“24/00736/FP - Installation of EV charging zones, including the erection of sub-station enclosure, LV panel, meter cabinet and associated works. Withdrawn.”

Officer report

The officer’s recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the development would harm the countryside’s character, appearance and openness, outweighing its economic benefits.

“Consequently, the proposal would cause significant harm to the character, appearance, and openness of the site’s surroundings and the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt. While the economic benefits of the development and the policy support for continued business use under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are acknowledged and afforded significant weight, these factors are not considered sufficient to outweigh the identified environmental and visual harm.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Fifty-four people objected and one made a neutral comment; the parish bodies objected, while highways, Natural England, National Highways and environmental health raised no objection.

“Site Notice and Neighbour Notification – 55 representations have been received, 54 in objection and one neutral comment. Their comments are summarised as: • Light pollution / harm to neighbour amenity. • Harm to street scene / Visual impact • Harm to road users / Highways safety • Harm to ecology • Landscaping from original permission not carried out • Objection to large amounts of hardstanding • Excessive height and lighting. Natural England – No objection.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor and a councillor spoke against the application, while the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

Members’ debate

Members focused on the unacceptable scale and the 30-metre lighting column, which they considered visible from long distances and harmful to the rural area.

“The application included the 30-meter lighting column, with no alternative lighting scheme proposed. • If the application had proposed removal of the column and lower-level lighting, the recommendation may have differed. • The lighting column was the element with the greatest impact on rural character.”

“The principle of development was not disputed because consent already exists, but the scale and especially the 30-meter lighting column was unacceptable. • The column is visible from long distances, is not screened by trees, and was highlight impactful in the rural area. • Members must consider the application as submitted, the officer’s report clearly showed harm to countryside.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused planning permission for the reasons set out in the report and addendum report.

“Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:”

“RESOLVED: That application 25/03197/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons as set out in the report and addendum report of the Development and Conservation Manager.”

Minutes