2014/1898 BIRMINGHAM ROAD MERIDEN Application No: Ward/Area: Location: 2014/1898/S MERIDEN BIRMINGHAM ROAD MERIDEN Date Registered: 21/11/2014 Applicant: Proposal: MR VAUGHN WILLIAMS CHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURE TO A USE FOR CARAVAN STORAGE COMPOUND AND OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Documents Online: http://www.solihull.gov.uk/planning/dc/viewappdetail.asp?y= 2014&R=1898 This application is being reported to Planning Committee for the following reason(s): X The proposals are a substantial departure from the Development Plan A new section 106 agreement is required The proposals would have a significant impact outside of its immediate vicinity The proposals have given rise to substantial weight of public concern The application has been called into Committee by a Member The application has been submitted by (or on behalf of) the Council (or it relates to Council owned land) and there has been one objection or more. The applicant is a Member or Officer of the Council (who has contact with Development Management) (or a close relative of such a person) The Head of Development Management has elected to refer the application to Committee PROPOSAL The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the change of use of land for caravan storage with enhanced landscaping proposed. The change of use also incorporated scraping the topsoil and levelling the land in question. Approximately 20 touring caravans are being stored on the land with vehicular access being from Birmingham Road.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES Highways : No objection Landscape : No comments received Environmental Health : No comments received Ecology : Insufficient information received Drainage : No observations Meriden Parish Council : Land not registered to occupier, unlawful occupancy; unlawful use of green belt; unlawful commercial enterprise; no rural exception to greenbelt occupancy; unlawful removal of agricultural pasture to provide hard standing and new driveway access to storage site; removal of hedge for access to new entrance and driveway; use of land for disposal/stockpiling of white goods (fridges and freezers); disregard for security and vulnerability of neighbouring sheltered housing; disregard for neighbours affected by unlawful action; wording of planning application to include operational development ; e-mail communication from the applicant advising intention of site being used as car wash. Neighbours Notified : 27/11/14 Site Notice : 28/11/14 REPRESENTATIONS 9 third party representation letters received raising the following concerns (summarised): Land is Green Belt where there is a presumption against such developments; Applicant has failed to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt; Site is not identified for development in the Local Plan; The land was purchased as agricultural. The purchase of the land is at the buyers/owners risk and any losses or financial loss is at owner s risk; Application site is now untidy and does not give the aesthetics and presentation of a village;
Development will detract significantly from the visual amenity enjoyed by local neighbours which cannot be mitigated for by any amount of screening. Visual impact of this main entrance to the village has been compromised; Detracts from rural appearance and nature of surrounding area; Views of site are worse in the winter when there are no leaves on the bushes surrounding the site; Impact on highway safety as a result of caravans parking on side of road waiting to get access to site; No need for caravan storage in the area there are 3 other storage facilities within 5 miles of the site; More than 20 caravans are stored on the site but still Mr Williams is advertising for more caravans; Applicant has no legal interest in the land in question; Land owner is struggling to identify owners of caravans that are currently stored illegally on this land; Impact on views from houses opposite; Concerns about flammable liquids being storey on site and fly tipping; No benefit to the community; Development will devalue property values; Development has been carried out without planning permission; POLICY Solihull Local Plan (2013) P7 Accessibility and Ease of Access P8 Managing Demand for Travel and Reducing Congestion P9 Climate Change P10 Natural Environment P11 Water Management P14 Amenity P17 Countryside and Green Belt National Planning Policy Framework (2012) The NPPF advises that there is presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. For decision taking this means: Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
- Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: an economic role contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; a social role supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and an environmental role contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy. The NPPF also carries forward the thrust of Government guidance in the Ministerial statement Planning for Growth by attributing significant weight in the need to support economic growth through the planning system. The following sections are relevant to this application: 9. Protecting Green Belt land 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Financial Considerations The Localism Act makes provision for local financial considerations to be taken into account as a material consideration in determining a planning application. Such matters may include contributions as a result of section 106 agreements, as these are directly related to the development and necessary to make the proposals acceptable, such considerations will carry significant weight. Other financial considerations, including the benefit as a result of an increased New Homes Bonus (paid to authorities based on the number of new dwellings provided), are more general and whilst are a factor in favour of the grant of permission will only carry limited weight (unless otherwise stated in the later paragraphs of this report). Planning Practice Guidance (2014) The advice contained within the Government's Planning Practice Guidance, issued on 6 March 2014, has been taken into account in reaching a decision.
SPD s / SPG s Solihull s Countryside (2010) Vehicle Parking Standards and Green Travel Plans (2006) Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines (1993) PLANNING HISTORY None relevant Adjacent (now vacant) site at Birmingham Garage Until recently this adjacent site benefited from historic established caravan storage that has now ceased. Other planning history on this adjacent site is as follows: 2010/1070 (09 Sep 10) [full plans approval] application to extend time limit for planning application number 2007/858 for a three storey apartment block containing 8 no. 2 bedroom apartments and 6 no. 1 bedroom apartments 2007/858 (26 Jul 07) [full plans approval] three storey apartment block containing 8 no. 2 bedroom apartments and 6 no. 1 bedroom apartments 2004/2898 (10 Mar 05) [full plans approval] 12 apartments relocate service road, car parking and landscaping 2003/1124 (04 Jul 03) [outline approval] outline application for erection of 9 apartments. 2003/29 (22 May 03) [withdrawn] outline application for erection of 10 no apartments. 2001/2147 (22 Nov 01) [outline refusal] outline application for residential development appeal: 3048 - : 31/10/2002: dismissed 1989/1018 (18 Sep 89) [refused] o/l redevelopment for residential purposes. SITE DESCRIPTION The application site relates to a parcel of land adjacent to the former Meriden Garage on the northern side of Brimingham Road between the main traffic island in the village and the traffic island junction with Maxstoke Lane. The site, which has an existing access onto Birmingham Road, benefits from tall mature tree/hedgerow planting along the north, east and southern boundaries. There is no planting or barriers along the western boundary adjacent to the field. Immediately north of the site is the Firs residential home, to the east sits the now vacant Meriden Garage, to the south are residential properties on the
opposite site of Birmingham Road and to the west is undeveloped agricultural land. The development, including removing the topsoil and levelling the land has taken place and therefore the application is retrospective. The application site is within the West Midlands Green Belt and has also been identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site. MAIN ISSUES Policy Implications and Impact on Green Belt Very Special Circumstances Neighbouring Amenity Highway Considerations Ecology APPRAISAL Policy Implications and Impact on Green Belt The application site is within the designated West Midlands Green Belt. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 80 states that the Green Belt serves 5 purposes: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Paragraph 87 of the NNPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Paragraph 89 states that Local Planning Authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development within the Green Belt unless one of 6 exceptions applies. This application is for the change of use of land to allow for open storage and does not involve the construction of
new buildings and thus the 6 exceptions listed in paragraph 89 would not be relevant in this instance. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF refers to certain other forms of development which are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. This paragraph states what development may fall within this category and whilst engineering operations are included it does not include the material change of use of the land nor does it include the use of land for caravan storage. Therefore, it is considered that the development amounts to inappropriate development which, according to paragraph 87 of the NPPF, is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Moving onto the openness and purposes of the Green Belt, the presence of caravans on this site clearly reduces openness of this part of the Green Belt with the resulting harm being significant. The caravans represent domestic features in an otherwise rural landscape and on land that was previously undeveloped. With regard to the engineering operations that have taken place on the site, this relates to the scraping of topsoil and levelling the majority of the site. Unfortunately, no plans identifying the area of land or showing the extent of works having been undertaken have been submitted and it is acknowledged that this information may be difficult to provide given that it has been done and survey work may not have been undertaken prior to the engineering works having taken place. For clarification, the access into the site is not part of the application and relates to an old established access that has been re-opened. Very Special Circumstances (VSC) The applicants have put forward a justification for the development which will be assessed as case for very special circumstances to outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and other harm. The applicant s case is a combination of factors which are summarised as follows: The site is appropriate for the storage of 20 no. caravans as this has minimal impact on the existing environment. Not all the land owned by the applicant would be used for caravans. A new planting buffer is proposed offset from the site entrance to screen any views of caravans into the site and the additional planting will add to the natural environment. There is a requirement for caravan storage in Meriden and the surrounding immediate areas, which serves the local needs under Policy P19 of Solihull Local Plan Solihull Council requires well run compounds.
There is an increasing problem for the theft of caravans and limited policing, the site will be secure and a local security company appointed which would benefit a local security run business and add to the local economy. There is convenient access to the main networks such as the A45. There will be no services connected to the site which will purely be used for storing of caravans. Applicant would be willing to maintain existing boundaries including highway verge thus reducing Council s maintenance costs for highway land. Applicant would further add any additional planting to the surrounding boundaries to improve the existing natural environment. Applicant has no intentions to develop the land and build on existing Green Belt land which has been carried out to large extents in the village already approved by Solihull Planning department. It is understood that there is a housing shortage but it appears in Meriden that there is high activity in residential developments being approved on Green Belt and recreational land. Applicant s main source of income is from the caravan storage business. Applicant has already lost land and money Officers have considered the applicants case, taking into account the factors that are cited by the applicant has being very special circumstances to justify the acceptance of this inappropriate development. Comments on the applicant s use are as follows: Firstly, the applicants are of the opinion that the storage of 20 caravans has a minimal impact on the existing environment. This is a subjective view to which the Council disagrees and as already discussed above considers the storage of caravans on this site to have a significant harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In response to the point raised by the applicant that it is only intended to store caravans on half of his land, this appears to coincide with the red and blue lines marked on the location plan. However, the applicants intention to leave the land edged blue as is does not in any way overcome the harm caused by the inappropriate development proposed to be regularised on the land edged red. The offer of additional landscaping is noted, however, whilst this could provide some additional screening when looking from the south of the site towards the entrance, it would not improve screening from other view points where the site is prominent and the caravans are highly visible. Notwithstanding this, additional planting would not overcome the in-principle objection to inappropriate development in the Green Belt nor the impact on openness of the Green Belt which is considered harmful. The applicants suggest that there is a requirement for caravan storage in Meriden. The applicant does not provide details on where this requirement is identified and there are no policies in the Local Plan that specifically relate to
caravan storage. Policy P19 Range and Quality of Local Services is aimed sustaining economic viability and vitality of local centres of which Meriden is one. This policy states that the scale and nature of new development should reflect the centre s role and function in serving local needs, the opportunity to reduce the need to travel or the need to sustain the economic viability and vitality of the centre. The main thrust of this policy is to sustain and enhance the day to day needs of local centres and shopping parades. Your officer s struggle to see how caravan storage would fit in to this role. Whilst there may be demand for caravan storage in the area no evidence has been submitted to show that this has to be within the Green Belt or indeed at the application site. The economic benefits of the applicant employing a local security business would be very modest. The points raised about proximity of site to the A45, no services to the site and applicant would be willing to maintain/enhance boundaries are noted. With regard to point raised about other developments having been approved on Green Belt land, as explained in the policy section of this report, there are 6 exceptions to the rule of new buildings being tantamount to inappropriate development. Each application is considered on its own merits and any changes to Green Belt boundaries to accommodate development would take place via a development plan. Finally, little weight should be given to the applicants personal financial circumstances. In order to demonstrate the existence of very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development, the harm must be clearly outweighed by benefits. This is a demanding requirement and it is concluded that in this case any benefits from the scheme could not, individually or as whole, to be sufficient to outweigh the significant harm caused to the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy P17 of Solihull Local Plan and to the aims and objectives of the NPPF. Neighbouring Amenity Policy P14 Amenity of Solihull Local Plan states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance the amenity of existing and potential occupiers of houses, businesses and other uses in considering proposals for new development. The application site is located adjacent to the former Meriden Garage site with residential dwellings on the opposite side of the Birmingham Road. Third party representations have been received regarding impact on residents near to the site. Whilst the caravans would be visible from the properties
given the nature of what is being stored on the site and the separation distances between the properties and the site boundaries (10m separation between the closest property and the site boundary) there would be no undue harm caused by loss of light, loss of privacy or by being overbearing. Impact on a third parties view is not a material planning consideration. With regard to potential impact from noise and disturbance, whilst there would be no issue from the actual storage of the caravans there is of course the collecting and dropping off of the caravans by their owners. Given the nature of how caravans are used this is not considered to be continuous activity and is very likely that the times that caravans are collected/dropped off would also be staggered. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site was previously undeveloped with no or very little comings and goings the additional traffic movements of 20 or so caravans to and from the site for storage purposes is unlikely to cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of nearby residents living to the north or south of the site. Therefore in this instance, it is not considered that the storage of caravans would represent such a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties to warrant the refusal of the development and in this regard the proposal would comply with Policy P14 of Solihull Local Plan 2014. Highway Considerations Policy P8 Managing Demand for Travel and Reducing Congestion states that all development should have regard to transport efficiency and highway safety. The policy states, inter alia, that development will not be permitted which results in a significant increase in delay to vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists or a reduction in safety for any users of the highway or other transport network. In response to the third party representations received the Council s Highway Engineer is undertaking some additional work before providing his final comments and an update will be provided at the meeting. Ecology Policy P10 Natural Environment of Solihull Local Plan states that development should be informed by the latest information on habitats and species, and take full account of national and local guidance on conserving biodiversity, opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and for improving and restoring the Borough s green infrastructure. The Policy also states that development likely to have an adverse affect on a Local Nature Reserve or a Local Wildlife or Geological Site will be permitted only if the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation or geological value of the site and its contribution to wider biodiversity objectives.
The application site (and adjacent land) has been identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site which means that it may be of wildlife value at a county level; however it has not yet been properly surveyed. Work to remove topsoil has already occurred which may have had a detrimental impact on any botanical interest which may have been there, and also removes the possibility of future survey work. Aerial photography shows that the majority of the site to be grassland with patches of taller vegetation. There is a pond around 70m SW of the site. The habitats on site have the potential to support reptiles and amphibians (including great crested newt). If a proper ecological assessment of the site had been undertaken then this would have included a data search of the Warwickshire Biological Records Centre which would highlight whether there were any historical records of protected species in the vicinity of the site. The site is bordered by mature hedgerows and trees, and no information has been submitted which details what is to be retained or removed as part of the development. The lack of ecological information submitted with this application means the Council s Ecologist has insufficient information to be able to make an informed assessment of the potential impact of the development on wildlife, especially protected species. Other Issues of land ownership, impact on views and property values are not material planning considerations. CONCLUSION The storage of caravans at the location identified on the site location plan is considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt and thus harmful by definition. Furthermore, the development detracts from the character and openness of the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been advanced to justify such inappropriate development. The site has been identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site and insufficient information has been submitted to inform the Council s Ecologist of the impact of the development on wildlife and protected species. If permission is refused, then formal enforcement action may be necessary if the breach of planning control isn t remedied voluntarily. This will be monitored and formal action instigated if this proves to be necessary. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons outlined above the application is recommended for refusal for the following reasons: (1) The application site lies within the Green Belt where there is a general presumption against development, except for certain criteria. Having regard to the nature of this proposal and to Green Belt policies, the proposal is considered to represent inappropriate development that is detrimental to the Green Belt and would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the rural character of the locality. Very special circumstances have not been demonstrated which would outweigh the harm caused by the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy P17 of Solihull Local Plan and to the aims and objectives of the NPPF. (2) The application site has been identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site (plws). The topsoil has already been removed and the site levelled to accommodate the storage of caravans. Based on the information submitted, which does not include a protected species assessment of the site, the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not cause harm to wildlife and protected species present at the site. The development is therefore considered contrary to Policy P10 of Solihull Local Plan 2013 and guidance within the NPPF. NOTE: For the avoidance of doubt this decision refers to the plans as follows: Plan Number(s): AVD-BRM-PL01; AVD-BRM-PL02