Mr Blondel had applied to create the unit and change the access arrangements to the agricultural site on the corner between Longue Rue and Rue des Crabbes.
The 2,200sq. m site used to house two spans of glass. However, little remains and the site is very overgrown. The condition of the site was so poor that the planners struggled to determine where the entrances to the site originally were. It was proposed that these two accesses should be infilled, with the main access being moved to the north-east edge.
It had also been hoped that permission would be granted to erect a single-storey building on the south-east corner of the site, with a yard and parking. The structure would have been 6.5m wide and 7.5m long, with a height of 3.65m. It would have been soundproofed and had two roller shutter doors.
The applicant is a sole trader who works on properties with his son and currently stores his vehicles and materials on multiple sites. This proposal aimed to allow the business to operate more efficiently.
Two representations were made, raising concerns about the conversion of the agricultural land to commercial use, which would not fit with the rural and residential characteristics of the area. There were also worries that the application would be a stepping stone towards turning the site towards industrial uses.
The strategic land use plan does allow for workshops, yards and storage facilities to be created outside the main and local centres if the operator is too small to compete with larger companies for facilities in the centres. It was also flagged that disused glasshouse sites would be suitable for this sort of development as they would prevent the creation of structures on open land. However, the development cannot have an adverse effect on traffic, neighbours or the character of the area.
In evaluating the land, the planners noted it had been overgrown since 2004 and, when they visited in June 2020, it was so overgrown they could not see any structures on the site. The site was cleared and the planners visited again in July.
‘The only visible remains of the northern span of glass was the remnants of the eastern gable, which comprised some timbers and panes of glass leaning on the remaining undergrowth,’ the planning report states.
‘The remains of the southern span also included the remains of the eastern gable, which, although arguably more intact than that of the northern span, appeared to be entirely supported by the adjacent vegetation and part of the frame of the central section of that span. Due to the extent of undergrowth it was not possible to establish whether the central part of the southern glasshouse was self-supporting.’
Planning policy states that there must be visible evidence of substantial superstructures still remaining on the site and the clearance of which will have a positive impact on visual amenity and landscape quality and character. If just floor-level ruins remain, this does not fit with the planning gateway.
‘In this case, whilst there is visible evidence of remnants of the superstructure on site, that evidence is limited,’ the report states.
‘The elements of superstructure remaining are dilapidated and, where standing, appear to rely on the adjacent vegetation and not to be self-supporting.’
This means that it does not fit the planners’ definition of a redundant glasshouse site, so permission was rejected.
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.