Gym, café and building extensions at Land South West Of Stone Street Farmhouse, Stone Street, Seal

What was proposed

The application sought indoor sport and café uses, extensions to two buildings, rooflights, and replacement of an outbuilding for indoor sport.

“- 25/01002/FUL Revised expiry date 17 October 2025 Proposal: Change of use and extension of two buildings from a flexible commercial use to class E(d) indoor sport and E(b) sale of food and drink. Proposed demolition of existing outbuilding and the erection of a replacement outbuilding ancillary to use class E(d) indoor sport.”

“To maintain highways safety, in accordance with policy 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework 25) The area for vehicle turning on site, as shown on drawing 0217-24-007-06A Vehicle tracking - Fire Engine D Vehicle tracking - Fire Engine, shall be kept free from obstruction at all times.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and current use

Earlier permissions covered storage, re-cladding, flexible commercial uses and access, while the current application sought to regularise some changes and add development.

“It is also proposed to demolish an existing agricultural building and erect a new building of the same form and scale but with altered fenestration. This would serve as an indoor sport use. Relevant planning history 11 21/01551/FUL-Proposed change of use of previously undeveloped agricultural land to use class B8 light storage. Existing warehouse structure to have new roller shutter and pedestrian doors. -GRANT 12 22/03329/FUL-Re cladding of existing rural building. -GRANT”

“23/00811/PAC-Prior notification for a change of use from two agricultural buildings to flexible use within Commercial/Business/Service (Class E). This application is made under Class R of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.-PNRQD 14 23/02683/LDCPR-Creation of new access under Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B.-GRANT 15 24/00877/FUL-Proposed extensions to two buildings.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because conditions could mitigate noise, light, parking and ecological impacts and very special circumstances outweighed Green Belt harm.

“Whilst the replacement of the southern building is inappropriate in principle, the building can already change use to indoor sport under an extant prior approval decision for the site (reference: 24/01076/PAC). It is considered that this presents a realistic fallback position, as the existing gymnasium is the applicant intent to expand its operations.”

“In addition to the above, the scheme will bring about further improvements by increasing the biodiversity of the area by 28%. This goes above and beyond the national requirements, to benefit the biodiversity of the local area. On considering the above, it is considered that the Very Special Circumstances exist for the development to overcome the identified definitional harm to the green belt.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while archaeology, conservation, ecology, highways, environmental health, rights of way and water consultees raised no objection subject to matters identified.

“In addition to the above, the Parish raises concerns that the proposed extension and intensification of use of the buildings/site, and proposed rooflights, would be out of scale with the surroundings and visually intrusive to the countryside setting, introducing a suburban-style development. There is further concern that retrospective signage is visible across the national landscape.”

“KCC Highways and Transportation – no objection, subject to planning conditions 35 No objections are raised in the response of the Highways and Transportation team, subject to planning conditions to secure adequate visibility splays for the site access, adequate cycle storage and electric vehicle charge points.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a speaker against the application, parish representatives and a local member, and members asked about traffic and road width.

Members’ discussion

Members considered highway safety, the access location, parking provision, residents’ concerns and the existing permission in principle for two dwellings.

“Questions of clarification were asked of the officers. The parking spaces within the proposal were larger than the minimum required by the Highways authority. No neighbouring properties had facilities for cars to turn into their driveways. The roof design and landscaping were in keeping with neighbouring properties. No evidence demonstrating a highways risk had been submitted, and there had been no recorded accidents on the road in the last five years.”

“Members discussed the proposal giving consideration to the potential impact of the location of the access on highway safety. They noted that it was in a similar location to other properties on the road, and the proposal offered a larger parking area than other houses in the area.”

Minutes