On 4 September 2008 the Planning Applications Panel considered the application for a works depot at the above site. The Panel decided to refuse the application for 3 reasons. The applicant requests reconsideration of these 3 reasons and these will be addressed in turn. The application was submitted on the basis that it had been contended a change of use had occurred on the site. Planning permission was granted for dry storage but the use had evolved into a works depot for two contractors. The first reason for refusal is that the development is an inappropriate use in the countryside, contrary to Policy C6 of the Island Plan 2002. Policy C6 presumes against all forms of development for whatever purpose, except for certain types of development where the scale, location and design would not detract from or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the countryside. Policy C6 states that the conversion of existing buildings to appropriate and non-intrusive commercial uses may be considered within this zone. However it also states for the avoidance of doubt that there is a presumption against the conversion of modern agricultural buildings within this zone. The use of dry storage, which is benign and occasional, is a non-intrusive commercial use that may be considered within the Countryside Zone under Policy C6. However Policy C6 specifically states that for the avoidance of doubt, there is a presumption against the conversion of modern agricultural buildings. Thus there is a presumption against the conversion of these modern agricultural buildings for an industrial use under Policy C6. The agent argues that the site is suitable for the current operations on the grounds that the potential for the site to return to the dairy industry is effectively abandoned and that as the Department approved offices on the site in 2005 a change of use had been previously acknowledged. The Panel, in determining the application and having visited the site on 3 September 2008, considered that, despite the previous approval for offices, the extent of existing operations on site were not an appropriate or non-intrusive use in the Countryside Zone and therefore was contrary to Policy C6. The second reason for refusal is that the proposed development is harmful to the character of the countryside, contrary to Policy C6 and C19 of the Island Plan 2002. The Panel considered that the current use is harmful to the character of the countryside because of the extent of outside storage and impact of the vehicles on the surrounding green lanes. In terms of outside storage, this application for a change of use to a works depot includes unlimited outside storage of materials and vehicles over the whole site outlined in red on the location plan. The Panel, in determining the application, visited the site and considered that the levels of existing outside storage were unacceptable. The agent argues that due to the level of existing landscaping and the remoteness of the site from neighbouring properties, that the site has a very limited visual impact.
The extent of outside storage at the time of the Panel’s site visit has now mostly been cleared in order to comply with condition 4 of the permit for dry storage P/2005/1864. The only outside storage currently is vehicles and stored materials in the yard in between the existing buildings. However the application subject to the request for reconsideration includes outside storage which the Panel deemed to be unacceptable and harmful to the character of the countryside. In terms of vehicular movements, the Panel were concerned over the type and number of vehicles and their impact on the surrounding green lanes. The wording of the reason for refusal is “... the number of heavy vehicular movements per week is harmful to the character of the countryside”. The agent argues that the use of the word ‘heavy’ to describe the vehicular movements is significantly overestimated as there are no HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicles) using the site. The agent has also provided a traffic count (undertaken by First Research over two days) which found that the peak traffic on La Rue de la Retraite was between 8am and 8.30am, that the peak traffic to and from the site was between 7am and 7.30am, and that 11% of traffic at peak periods could be attributed to the activities on site. The Panel considered that the vehicles using the site during their visit including vans, lorries, low loaders, flat bed trucks and other medium sized commercial vehicles would cause conflict on the surrounding green lanes with other cars. The Panel were also concerned over the number of trips generated to and from the site. The traffic count undertaken by First Research identifies over a two day period 254 trips in total were generated to and from the site. The agreed number of vehicle movements to and from the site for Geomarine only is 12 per week. If that number of trips were also extended to Brenwal, the total number of trips per week considered acceptable would be approximately 24 per week. The recorded 254 over two days is significantly higher than what would be considered reasonable for a benign and occasional dry storage use. The third reason for refusal is that there are not adequate drainage facilities for surface water run-off. During their site visit, the Panel were concerned about outside storage consisting of scrap metal and oil tanks that was situated on unsealed surfaces. The Panel were particularly concerned over potential land contamination from the outside storage and considered that there should be appropriate drainage facilities for surface water run-off. The agent states that the extent of outside storage at the time of the Panel’s visit has been cleared, thus reducing the potential risk of pollution. This is noted and as stated above, current outside storage mostly complies with condition 4 of permit P/2005/1864 with the exception of vehicles and stored materials in the yard in between the existing buildings.
However the application under reconsideration includes outside storage on unsealed surface which the Panel considered unacceptable. If the Minister is minded to approve the application for a works depot, it is recommended that appropriate conditioning regarding hardstanding and drainage be imposed to protect against possible land contamination and water table pollution. To note, there is also a current application pending to continue the site for dry storage. The Department is minded to support the continuation of dry storage, provided that the applicant complies with the conditions of the original permit. Outside storage, on-site staff and vehicular movements can all be negotiated through the conditions already imposed on the permit P/2005/1864. The application however for a works depot is not considered acceptable, in line with the Panel’s decision of 4 September 2008. | 
gov.je