Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/12/0886              Date: 14 May 2012    Received: 14 May 2012

 

APPLICANT:	G-Forces Web Management Ltd
LOCATION:	G FORCES WEB MANAGEMENT LTD, CORBIN BUSINESS PARK, CARING LANE, BEARSTED, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME14 4NJ
PARISH:	Thurnham
PROPOSAL:	Change of use of land to car park in accordance with plan number 1591-02-39 and design and access statement as received on 14 May 2012.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	30th August 2012   Chris Hawkins

 

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

 

●  Councillor Garland has requested it be reported for the reason set out in the report.

 

1.       POLICIES

 

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV28, ENV34, T13
South East Plan 2009:   RE1, RE2, RE4, RE5, CC2, CC4, A0SR7 
Village Design Statement:  N/A

Government Policy:  National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

 

2.       HISTORY

 

2.1     There is significant planning history to this application site that is relevant to the determination of this application. The case history (summarised) is set out below:

 

MA/10/0140 -       Corbin Business Park, Caring Lane, Thurnham. Erection of a two storey rear extension to existing office building including reconfigured site layout, parking and landscaping. Approved.

 

MA/07/1361-                  Corbin Business Park, Caring Lane, Thurnham. An application for advertisement consent for installation of a free standing non-illuminated entry sign. Approved with conditions.

 

MA/07/0176 -                 The Barn, 23 Caring Lane, Thurnham. Retrospective application for the erection of a replacement building for B1 use and associated car parking (on site of B8 storage and distribution premises granted permission for conversion from B8 to B1 under MA/05/2133). Approved with conditions.

 

MA/05/2133 -                 The Barn, 23 Caring Lane, Thurnham. Change of use of existing barn from class B8 storage and distribution use to class B1 business use with associated alterations and parking. Approved.

 

MA/05/0324 -                 The Barn, 23 Caring Lane, Thurnham. Certificate of Lawful Development for an existing development being the use of the site for storage use within Use Class B8. Approved.

 

3.       CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1     Kent Highway Services were consulted and raised no objection to the proposal.

 

4.       REPRESENTATIONS

 

4.1       Cllr Garland requested that the application be brought before Members for the following reason:

 

4.1.1  ‘I would like to call this application to committee as I believe the request for planning permission is a reasonable one and that in this instance, given no Parish Council objections that it could be in the interests of economic development within the borough to allow this application and to allow this business to expand. If permission is not granted then either the business will not expand in the borough and relocate, or there will be pressure on Caring Lane if expansion occurs and additional car users are forced to use the road to park.

 

I believe, on balance, that the economic development interests should be explored by Committee.’

 

4.2       Thurnham Parish Council were consulted and made the following comments:

 

4.2.1  ‘No objection in principle is made to using this area for car parking but that it should be personal to G-Forces and should revert to garden land should G-Forces vacate this site.           

 

4.2.2  Tarmac as a surfacing material is not satisfactory. We accept the argument that G-Forces want to maintain an image of quality but there are alternatives providing permeable surface treatment giving an improved appearance and reducing maintenance of drains and soakaways.

 

4.2.3  If these conditions are imposed Thurnham raise no objections.

 

4.2.4  The Parish Council would therefore wish to see this planning application reported to the Planning Committee.’ 

 

4.3    Neighbouring properties were notified and one letter of support has been received.

 

5.       CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site Description

 

5.1.1  The application site is located within the open countryside to the south of the established ‘G-Forces’ office building. The site was previously garden land of 23 Caring Lane, but it is accessed through the existing ‘G-Forces’ office site, to the south of the existing office building.

 

5.1.2  The site is question is 0.12 hectares in size, and is located to the west of Caring Lane. The site is already being used as car parking area without the benefit of planning permission, and has been since early 2012.

 

5.1.3  The site cannot be seen from public vantage points, as it is well screened by existing landscaping, and the existing buildings within the area.

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1  The proposal is for the retention of an existing area of car parking to the south of the existing office building. The car park would consist of an additional 44 car parking spaces (resulting in a total of 94 spaces) that would serve the employees of the company on site. The car park would be constructed of tarmac, and would have no internal landscaping within. Some hedging and tree planting is proposed around the perimeter of the site.  

 

5.3       Principle of Development

 

5.3.1 The development, for the retention of a car park is sited within the open countryside. Development within the countryside is covered by Policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000), which allows for development that causes no visual harm, or for specific types of other development. Car park, or economic development is not within the categories of this policy, and as such, one has to make an assessment as to whether the proposal would cause visual harm.

 

5.3.2   However, of importance to the consideration of this proposal is the location of the site, and the background to allowing first the construction of an office building, and secondly, the extension of this building. These buildings were permitted within the open countryside on the basis that the applicants had demonstrated that the site was in fact relatively sustainable, and that a significant number of staff live locally, and would travel to the site in a more ‘sustainable’ manner – i.e. not by private motor car. This was a key consideration in granting planning permission, despite the proposal being contrary to the Development Plan (in part) at that time.

 

5.3.3   In order to understand how the development would be run in a sustainable manner, a travel plan was submitted, and agreed by this Authority.

 

5.3.4   As Members are aware, a presumption in favour of sustainable development is seen as a golden thread of the National Planning Policy Framework (herein referred to as the NPPF). Whilst there is no clear definition of what ‘sustainable development’ is within the NPPF, through case law, and appeal decisions it is clear that the over-reliance of the private motor car is a key consideration as to whether a site, or development is considered sustainable or otherwise. Other considerations also include the previous use of the land (i.e. whether greenfield or brownfield) and the sensitivity of a site in terms of biodiversity.

 

5.3.5   As with previous planning guidance (in particular, PPS4) the NPPF still promotes a ‘town centre first’ policy, and as such, I see no greater flexibility within this document of the development of rural sites for town centre uses, if these are not first exhausted.

 

5.3.6   To my mind therefore, the question is whether this proposal would demonstrate that the applicants have not complied with the Travel Plan, and whether the approval of the car park would reduce the sustainability of this site – i.e. make it too easy to travel to and from the site by car.

 

5.3.7   The Travel Plan that accompanied planning application MA/10/0140 set out the objectives of the applicants in order to ensure that the development was run in as sustainable manner as possible. Whilst the previous proposal indicated that the extension could accommodate expansion which would see the workforce rise from 65 to 115 (a 77% increase), the permission allowed for a near doubling of the car parking spaces from (26 to 50). The permission also allowed for a number of motorcycle and cycle parking spaces to be provided. This Travel Plan sought to mitigate the lower number of car parking spaces for this number of staff, as single occupancy of car travel would decrease to 65% by 2014 and car sharing would increase to 21% by the same year. Promotion of other means of transport was also to be encouraged, including cycling, walking, and the use of public transport.

 

5.3.8   The applicant has identified within this application that they have experienced growth over and beyond that predicted when this application, and Travel Plan was submitted. It states that instead of the proposed additional 50 staff intended within offices, an additional 86 jobs have been created – an additional 35 over that originally envisaged. It is also proposed that the company will further expand the number of work placement students in the near future.

 

5.3.9   As set out within the previous Committee reports (for application MA/10/0140) the Council acknowledge that this is a successful, local employer, and that its continued growth is welcomed. It is also acknowledged that the continued growth of the business is likely to generate some additional parking provision on or around the application site. Indeed, officers have sought to negotiate with the applicants, and have suggested the provision of a smaller car parking area, which responds to the increase in projected staff (rather than near doubling the existing provision), but this suggestion was rejected. However, I do not consider it appropriate to provide the level of car parking now suggested at the site, as this would undermine the success of the proposed Travel Plan, and thus would also result in an unsustainable development within the countryside, contrary to the objectives of the NPPF. Should the applicant sought reduce the number of car parking spaces to a number related to the unexpected growth of the business, as suggested, I consider that this may not have ‘tipped to balance’ and a different recommendation may have resulted.                

 

5.4    Visual Impact

 

5.4.1  As the proposal is set away from the highway, behind an existing residential property, it cannot be seen from a public vantage point. There is a public footpath to the north of the G-Forces site, however, this does not allow views through to the new area of car parking. Due to the topography of the land, there are no medium or long distance views across the site.

 

5.4.2  Whilst this is a further intrusion of development into the open countryside, I do not consider that there would be any significant visual harm caused, and as such, I do not consider that it is appropriate to seek to refuse the application on this basis.

 

5.5    Residential Amenity

 

5.5.1  In terms of residential amenity, concern was raised with the previous application (for the extension to the office) about the number of vehicular movements along Caring Lane that would result from the expansion. This would potentially exacerbate this concern as it would allow for more vehicular movements along the lane.

 

5.5.2  Whilst this may be the case, I again do not consider the use of a public highway of the proposed number of vehicles, to cause a demonstrable level of harm to the occupiers of the residential properties within Caring Lane.

 

5.5.3  The proposal would be located behind an existing residential property, however, the owner of this property has willingly provided this land to the applicants. The car park would be approximately 

 

5.6    Highways

 

5.6.1  Kent Highway Services were consulted and raised no objection to this proposal. I concur with their view that that proposal would not give rise to any highway safety concern.

 

5.7    Landscaping

 

5.7.1  With regards to landscaping, only a small level of additional planting is proposed around the perimeter of the application site. Whilst regrettable that more planting has not been provided, due to the lack of visual harm caused by the proposal, and because conditions should only be applied in order to mitigate harm, I do not consider it appropriate to seek to refuse the application on this basis.

 

5.8    Ecology

 

5.8.1  The land upon which the car park has been constructed was a rear garden, which from our records was relatively well kept – i.e. a mown lawn, with little additional landscaping. As such, there is little indication that there would have been a significant amount of biodiversity within the site. Nonetheless, it is regrettable that the applicants completed this work without considering the impacts on ecology – something that has also not been considered within the applicants submission.

 

5.8.2  Whilst there is not mitigation proposed, as the site appears to have been well tended garden land, I do not consider it appropriate to object to this proposal on the grounds of the impacts upon ecology.

 

 

 

 

6.      CONCLUSION

 

6.1     Whilst the retention of the car park may not result in any significant visual harm, its location, within the open countryside is an important consideration in the determination of this application. Permission was granted for the extension on the basis that the site was sustainable due to a number of measures being introduced to reduce the reliance on the private car. The provision of a car park of this scale would undermine these measures, and would result in an unsustainable form of development. It is for this reason that Members are respectfully requested to give this application unfavourable consideration and refuse retrospective planning permission for the reason given below. 

 

7.      RECOMMENDATION

 

REFUSE planning permission:  

 

1.           The proposed car park, by virtue of the number of spaces proposed, would result in an unsustainable form of development, that would prove to be contrary the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in that it would discourage the use of alternative modes of transport (i.e. not the private motor car) to and from the application site.

 

 

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated, is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.