Industrial building at Sycamore House, Kirkbride, Wigton

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a 216-square-metre industrial building with three units and a commercial change of use from agricultural land.

“The lawful use of the land prior to development was part of an agricultural field. The application also seeks the change of use of agricultural land to commercial.”

“The building has a total floorspace of approx. 216 square metres and is split into 3 units. The larger unit is 108 square metres with 2 smaller units each 54 square metres in size. The overall size of the building is 12 metres wide x 18 metres in length, ridge height of 3.7 metres total height 5.1 metres.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in open countryside beside a classified road, with agricultural fields, homes, an established engineering business and an airfield nearby.

“The application site is located on a classified road that runs between the A596 at Wigton and Kirkbride. The site lies 370 metres from the settlement boundary of Kirkbride and therefore is classed as being in an open countryside location.”

“The site operates an established business from the site G W Rudd Engineering that undertakes car repairs and MOTs from modern green clad agricultural style buildings.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a vehicle workshop, replacement building and workshop extensions; several later applications for other site works remained pending or were withdrawn.

“2/2003/1134 Certificate of lawfulness to operate vehicle workshop – Granted 31 October 2003.”

“2/2008/0914 Erection of replacement building to replace dilapidated buildings on site – Granted 12 January 2009.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended refusal because the development was inappropriate countryside development without a suitably scaled business extension or established locational need.

“However, the proposal in the form of the change of use of the land and building would result in inappropriate development within the open countryside that does not form a suitable scaled extension to an existing business or demonstrate a locational need to be sited in this location, contrary to Policies S3 and S14 from the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) and SA2 of Part 2 of the plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“The proposal would result in inappropriate development within the open countryside that does not form a suitably scaled extension to an existing business or demonstrate a locational need to be sited in this location, contrary to Policies S3 and S14 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014, Policy SA2 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2020 and paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The building’s design, landscape impact, highway effects, flooding and residential amenity were considered acceptable, but the commercial use was not justified in this location.

“Officers consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity or landscape character of the area, highway safety, flooding or the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.”

“Due to the design, scale and siting officers consider the erection of the building to be acceptable to serve the existing lawful use as agricultural. The harm identified is in relation to the proposed change of use of the building.”

Officer report

Responses to the proposal

The parish council and highways authority raised no objections, while drainage information remained outstanding and Environmental Health supported noise conditions.

“Kirkbride Parish Council have no objections to this application.”

“I have reviewed the proposal, and the documentation submitted with the application. It is noted that the agent has suggested noise conditions to be attached to any approval to ensure that noise is controlled from the premises. I agree with these conditions and provided these noise conditions are attached then I have no objections to this application.”

Officer report

Support and objections

No public representations had been received, while the Ward Councillor said the proposal supported and diversified the existing rural family business.

“This application has been advertised by the display of site notice and neighbour letter. No representations have been received to date.”

“This provides a diversification for the existing business providing additional income to support this local rural family business. • Tenant is a motor body repair and is a complementary business to the main business of GW Rudd Garage. • The same users, use the applicant’s business and the business in this building. • The occupier also works for the applicant one day per week in this proposed building. • Building design reflects other buildings on the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Ward Councillor and the agent spoke in support of the application.

What members debated

A member proposed approval contrary to the recommendation because the development was not inappropriate countryside development and had a locational need.

“Following consideration of the application a Member proposed to accept the application contrary to Officer’s recommendation as they felt the development would not result in inappropriate development within the open countryside and it demonstrated a locational need to be sited in this location, this was seconded.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee unanimously agreed to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation.

“A vote was taken and it was unanimously agreed.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to conditions to regularise and control the development, with authority delegated to agree those conditions.

“RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to conditions to regularise and control the development with delegated authority be given to the Service Manager for Development and Implementation to agree the conditions.”

Minutes