Agricultural building at James Farm, New Lane, Pilling

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for an agricultural building measuring 18.2 metres by 6.2 metres, with a maximum height of 4.1 metres.

“This application is retrospective for the erection of a building for agriculture. It is understood to measure 18.2m x 6.2m, with a sloping roof of maximum height 4.1m. The plans show an open entrance to the frontage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an open field in designated countryside, next to New Lane, with a public right of way to the north and an access track.

“The application site is a field on the southern side of New Lane, Eagland Hill. The site is in the designated countryside through the Adopted Local Plan. It is also in an SSSI impact zone and is functionally linked land for pink footed goose and whooper swans. There is a Public Right of Way outside the north of the site along a track.”

“The application site is part of wider fields owned by the applicant. There is a hedge to the northern boundary of the site. New Lane is at a higher land level than the site. There is an access onto the junction with New Lane and a hardstanding track.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the building unjustified, visually harmful to the countryside, and supported by inaccurate access and plan information.

“There is no justification for the provision of this building in this countryside location, and the building has been assessed to not be necessary. This is contrary to Policies SP1, SP4 and EP8 of the Adopted Local Plan. This countryside location is also poorly accessible, and the proposal will result in unsustainable transport movements contrary to Policies SP2 and CDMP6.”

“Inadequate and inaccurate information has been provided with the application in relation to the proposed access arrangements to serve the development. Also, the proposed floor plan and elevations do not measure up with the stated scale on the plans. This fails to demonstrate that appropriate vehicular access can be secured at the site access to serve the development, which would be necessary to ensure a safe arrangement for highway users.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and the applicant spoke in support of the application, and councillors asked questions about the building’s height and scope.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the building’s size, countryside impact, business plan, mismatching information, access concerns and the risk of setting a precedent.

“Councillor Swatton commented that he appreciated the reasoning for the application, and that the applicant had provided additional information. However, he explained that he did not feel comfortable passing the application with mismatching information and having it create a precedent.”

“Councillor Livesey raised that there were 4 letters of objection and 5 letters of support and commented that it didn’t seem as if there was a great deal of local dissent. The Chair addressed that one of the letters of objection was around the access arrangements. He and Councillor Swatton both agreed it was problematic. Councillor Kay disagreed and questioned why LCC Highways hadn’t intervened sooner if they had concerns over the access.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The officer recommendation failed, after which members approved an alternative recommendation for planning consent without conditions.

“Following a vote, the officer’s recommendation failed. Councillor Belshaw proposed an alternative recommendation to approve planning consent subject to agreement with the Chaiman and the Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control to consider any conditions that may be necessary, this was seconded by Councillor Rimmer and following a vote this alternative recommendation was approved.”

“Conditions: Agreed - No conditions required…”

Minutes