Skip to main content

All online waste forms are currently unavailable.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working to restore the forms as soon as possible.

Agenda item

25/03197/FP The Barn, Great North Road, Radwell, Baldock, Hertfordshire, SG7 5EN

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of detached industrial storage building following demolition of two existing industrial storage buildings and installation of external lighting and increase in material storage height to 6.0m. (Development has commenced)

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 25/03197/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons as set out in the report and addendum report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Minutes:

Audio recording – 19 minutes 39 seconds

 

The Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 25/03197/FP and advised that:

 

·        An ecology reason for refusal had been added within the published addendum.

·        The application sought erection of a detached industrial storage building following demolition of two existing storage buildings, retention of external lighting poles and allowing stacking of material up to 6 meters in height.

 

The Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/03197/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·        Councillor Ruth Brown

·        Councillor Claire Winchester

·        Councillor Louise Peace

·        Councillor Martin Prescott

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·        The lighting column did not have planning permission, but the existing buildings did.

·        A landscaping plan existed but was not included in the presentation.

·        The previous permission included a condition which required lighting hours to comply with the bat survey.

·        There was not a pre application consultation.

 

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the application was considered as a whole, the 30-meter lighting column was the most impactful element. However, without it, the recommendation may have been different, but that scenario was not before the committee.

 

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Parish Councillor Matt Henderson to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Henderson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·        The original planning permission was never lawfully implemented.

·        The pre-commencement conditions were not discharged.

·        The construction management plan was not discharged.

·        The first planting season was not met.

·        The barn approved years ago was never erected, the site had instead become a large industrial compound.

·        The 30-meter lighting column was highly intrusive: visible from multiple junctions and villages, dazzles drivers on the A1 and A507, lighting report was inadequate and not based on on-site assessment.

·        Over 50 objections had been submitted.

·        The scale, height and bulk of the site are far beyond what was originally approved.

·        Parish council support employment but want development delivered in accordance with the original consent.

·        The current proposal is wholly from what was approved.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Henderson for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Tom Tyson to speak against the application. Councillor Tyson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·        The application was effectively retrospective, following enforcement intervention.

·        The original 2022 permission retained existing buildings, limited storage height to 3 meters and was considered acceptable and non-harmful.

·        The current development demolished the barn and bat roost, introduced large storage racks and tall material stacks and created a stark visual impact due to elevated ground levels.

·        The 12-meter perimeter lights dazzle drivers and affect visibility, the 30-meter central lighting column dominates the skyline and requires a red aviation light, and the lighting column was a major intrusion into the rural nightscape.

·        Urged Members to support refusal for reasons in Section 5.1 of the report.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Tyson for their presentation and invited the Representative to the Applicant, Mr Colm Daly to speak in support of the application. Mr Daly thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·        The site was previously developed land, 2.3 ha, almost entirely hardstanding, with existing buildings and industrial use.

·        Policy CGB1 allowed rural economic development and reuse of existing buildings.

·        The proposal replaced two buildings with one modern structure, increase floorspace by only 38.5 square meters and is a replacement, not a significant expansion.

·        Policy CGB4 supports replacement buildings where impact is not materially greater.

·        The site was already industrial, surrounded by major highway infrastructure.

·        Juniper green cladding chosen to reduce visual impact.

·        The officer accepted 12-meter perimeter lights do not harm rural character.

·        Environmental health raised no objection to the lighting.

·        The proposal supported 30 full-time jobs.

·        No objections from Highways or National Highways.

·        Ecological matters can be addressed via conditions.

·        Submitted that visual impact does not outweigh economic benefits and asked Members to grant permission.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·        Councillor Val Bryant

·        Councillor Claire Winchester

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Daly advised that:

 

·        The central light was installed due to break-ins and staff safety concerns.

·        The intention was to replace the central light with lower-level lighting once the new building was erected.

·        The ridge height increased by approximately 2 meters, floorspace increased by 38.5 square meters, and did not have access to the full volumetric figures but denied a tripling of volume.

 

In response to points raised, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·        The application included the 30-meter lighting column, with no alternative lighting scheme proposed.

·        If the application had proposed removal of the column and lower-level lighting, the recommendation may have differed.

·        The lighting column was the element with the greatest impact on rural character.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·        Councillor Ruth Brown

·        Councillor Louise Peace

·        Councillor Val Bryant

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·        The principle of development was not disputed because consent already exists, but the scale and especially the 30-meter lighting column was unacceptable.

·        The column is visible from long distances, is not screened by trees, and was highlight impactful in the rural area.

·        Members must consider the application as submitted, the officer’s report clearly showed harm to countryside.

·        Visited the site and saw the lighting column clearly from multiple viewpoints; noted it rises above the trees and would be even more stark in winter.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/03197/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons as set out in the report and addendum report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Supporting documents: