Agenda item

Retention of hardstanding as car parking, link pedestrian access to adjacent commercial site, landscaping, and biodiversity net gain.

Public Participation

·       Mr Dale Evans spoke in support of the application

·       Cllr Mark Clarke, from Cricklade Town Council, spoke in objection to the application

The Conservation and Planning Officer, James Repper, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the retention of hardstanding as a car park, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, environmental and highway impacts. 

Attention was drawn to the location of the site outside of the Chelworth commercial area defined in Cricklade Neighbourhood Plan. However, the officer noted that, whilst the proposed development was in conflict with Policy B5 of the Neighbourhood Plan, it was not expected to generate any additional traffic to the site and would be used primarily for staff parking. The existing hard standing would be linked to the industrial estate by the creation of a new permeable footpath. The officer explained that the proposals would reduce the landscape impact of the existing hardstanding and help to preserve biodiversity. The additional parking would also have a positive impact on highway safety within the Chelworth commercial area which needed to be factored into the planning balance.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers.

Details were sought about the reason for the scale of the development. It was explained that the hardstanding had been installed by a tenant and that the landowner had said that they had had not given their permission for the works. The site was planned to be used primarily for staff parking and could also provide overflow parking for customers.

It was noted that the hardstanding had been used as a location to sell cars but was currently vacant.

In response to a query about whether it would be possible to add a condition that a gate be added to restrict usage by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), the officer confirmed that it would. He also highlighted that the prohibition of overnight parking and HGVs were also stipulated in the conditions attached to the report.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Nick Dye then spoke in opposition to the application.

In order to begin debate, it was proposed by Cllr Steve Bucknell, seconded by Cllr Ashley O’Neill, that the application be approved for the reasons outlined in the report.

A debate followed where the size and retrospective nature of the application were discussed. In response to queries it was stated that Cricklade Neighbourhood Plan could be accorded full weight in the planning balance.

Other issues raised included the highway impacts and potential for use by HGVs. To address concerns about these issues, Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall proposed an amendment that a lockable, height restricted, gate be installed at the site entrance. The proposed amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment by the proposer and seconder of the original motion, Cllrs Bucknell and O’Neill.

Following a vote, the motion to approve the application was lost. A motion to refuse the application was then moved by Cllr Gavin Grant and seconded by Cllr Clare Cape.

Some members of the Committee questioned whether the proposed development was larger than that required for staff parking, but officers advised the Committee against including size as a reason for refusal. 

At the conclusion of the discussion on the proposal, it was then:

Resolved

That planning permission for the retention of hardstanding as car parking be REFUSED.

Reason

The proposed change of use of agricultural land outside the defined boundary of Chelworth Industrial Estate represents development in the open countryside without sufficient justification. This is contrary to the development strategy, the aims and objectives of the Cricklade Neighbourhood Plan, and the principles of sustainable development. As such, the proposal fails to comply with Policy B5 of the Cricklade Neighbourhood Plan.