A farmer has been told he cannot keep dozens of storage containers on his farm.
A planning inspector dismissed Mark Gribble’s appeal to retain the 37 storage containers at Park Farm in New Road, Hellingly, last week.
Mr Gribble’s retrospective application was first refused by council planning officers in February last year due to concerns around its impact on the rural character of the surrounding area and “less than substantial harm” to the setting of a Grade II listed barn on the same site.
Council planning officers noted how the storage space itself provided benefits to the local economy and could potentially be supported with a more “sympathetic” design.
In a report at the time, a council planning spokesman said: “It is conceivable that provision of additional Class B8 storage space could be provided in a manner that is sympathetic to the setting of [a] designated heritage asset.
“The additional Class B8 provision in the form proposed would not provide public benefits [which] outweigh the identified harm, and the balance of considerations in this instance indicate permission should be refused.”
Mr Gribble disputed this view arguing nearby housing developments had already resulted in changes to the rural character of the area. They argued this meant the storage containers, which are on a site with number of existing business uses already, would have a limited impact on the character of the area.
During the appeal process, Mr Gribble also made offers to remove some of the containers and to erect cladding around others.
These alterations, offered as potential conditions, were not accepted by the inspector, partly because they were considered to represent too great a change from what had originally been considered by council planners.
Mr Gribble also argued there was significant demand for (and economic benefit from) a storage business on the site. This view was partly shared by the inspector, who acknowledged it would result in “economic growth” which weighed in favour of the scheme.
But the inspector also judged the site to have a “predominantly rural character”, despite the nearby developments. While the inspector judged some of the containers to be in “discreet positions upon the site”, they said the development as a whole would harm this rural character.
The inspector said most of the containers — with a number of notable exceptions — also failed to preserve the setting of the Grade II listed barn.
The inspector judged the scheme’s harms to outweigh its benefits.
In their decision notice, the inspector said: “The containers comprise a commercial storage facility that promotes economic growth and support to the rural economy, which are aims set out in [the National Planning Policy] Framework. This weighs in favour of the appeal proposal.
“However, the moderate scale of the proposal and relatively modest extent of the storage floorspace under consideration tempers its economic benefits, and, on balance, I find they would not outweigh the great weight that should be given to the [heritage] asset’s conservation.
“In addition to the harm identified to the significance of the building, I have separately identified harm to the character and appearance of the area for reasons that are set out above. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as whole and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.”
The planning application, together with the appeal decision, can be found here.
