Vehicle storage on farmland at Highfield Farm House Tewkesbury Road, Gloucester

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to use agricultural land for temporary storage and distribution of new vehicles linked to the adjacent business.

“Change of use of agricultural land to Use Class B8 (storage and distribution) for the temporary storage of new vehicles associated with the adjacent vehicle import, sale and service business (Retrospective).”

“The proposals are for the retrospective change of use of land for the temporary storage of new vehicles on land to the east of Highfield Business Park, Deerhurst associated with the existing business at Highfield Farmhouse known as Litchfield Imports (Glos.) Limited. The business is an established vehicle import, sale and service business located on the A38 between Tewkesbury and Gloucester.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 1.2-hectare site consisted of fields beside Highfield Business Park, with access from the A38 and no landscape or heritage designation.

“The application site comprises 1.2 hectares of land to the east of Highfield Business Park and south east of Highfield Farmhouse. The site is associated with a business operating from Highfield Farmhouse which has grown over the years to diversify away from farming to provide an employment use for vehicle import, sale and servicing known as Litchfield Imports (Glos.) Limited.”

“The application site is adjacent to Highfield Business Park which is designated as a Rural Business Centre under Policy EMP2 of the TBP. The site is currently formed by fields that are bound by hedgerows with trees.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal outside designated employment land, incompatible with the rural character and harmful to the rural landscape despite economic benefits.

“As a starting point, the application is located outside of a defined settlement boundary and outside of any allocated or designated employment land. Planning Officers do not consider the application to be within a Key Growth sector as defined by Policy SD1. The proposal is not considered to be an expansion of the established Rural Business Centre and therefore contrary to Policy EMP2.”

“In relation to the impact on the character and appearance of the rural area, the proposal would not add to the overall quality of the area, is not visually attractive and the use would not be sympathetic to the local character and landscape setting contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 and would result in an obvious and visually urbanising form or development which when viewed in its agricultural context appears intrusive contrary to Policy…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative described the business’s employment, investment, turnover and economic contribution, and asked for permission.

What members debated

Members discussed conditions, job projections, vehicle types, drainage, landscaping and whether the economic benefits outweighed the identified harm.

“PL.17.02.26 suggested conditions which the applicant had agreed to, should Members be minded to permit the application, and he requested that planning permission be granted. A Member sought clarification as to the suggested conditions which had been discussed and the Principal Planning Officer advised these had been drafted in the event that Members took a different view to Officers and, whilst the exact wording was yet to be fully agreed, conditions had been identified…”

“She felt it would be difficult to find a traditional agricultural use in a rural employment setting. She indicated there was no visible existing landscaping to protect the landscape on the edge of Highfield Business Park and did not consider there would be any significant harm given the setting. She felt greater weight should be applied to the economic benefits and that some of the harm could be mitigated through landscaping.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members delegated authority to permit the application subject to planning conditions and a Section 106 agreement securing travel-plan payments.

“PL.17.02.26 hardstanding or hardcore in place and had raised no objection on that basis. If Members were minded to permit the application, it was possible to include a condition in relation to drainage if they so wished. The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.”

“Upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Head of Service: Development Management to PERMIT the application, subject to the agreement of planning conditions in relation to approved plans, landscaping scheme, use being conditioned to the storage of private motor cars only under use Class B8, height restrictions on the site, hours of operation, details of boundary treatment, Travel Plan, ecological mitigation and enhancement strategy,…”

Minutes