PLANNING STATEMENT TO OBJECT TO THE RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING

APPLICATION MADE TO EAST STFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL FOR THE RETENTION OF

EXISTING SHOT BLASTING AND PAINT SPRAYING SHED AND ASSOCIATED

EXTRACTION UNIT

ON

LAND AT BELMOT FARM,

NEEDWOOD,

STAFFORDSHIRE

DE14 9PH

APPLICATION REFERENCE P2016/00581

Prepared by:

Phil Plant BSc (Hons) MRICS

Rural Planning Consultant

Mid West Planning Ltd

18 Church Street

Shifnal

Shropshire

Tf11 9AA

Tel: 01952 276745

February 2017

2

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. THE APPLICATION SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA 4

3. THE DEVELOPMENT 4

4. PLANNING POLICY 4

5. CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES AGAINST PLANNING POLICY 5

6. CONCLUSION 6

Appendix One: Letter from Helen Ratcliffe-Wallis - Environmental Health and

Safety Advisor.

Appendix Two: Report from Radford Poultry Partnership Ltd

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report is written to formally object to the planning application (ref

P2016/00581) for the retrospective planning application for the retention of a shed

used in conjunction with the shot blasting and paint spaying business at Belmont

Farm, Belmont Road, Needwood. DE13 9PH. The application is made by Mr Gary

Carrington of Belmot Shot Blasting Ltd.

1.2 The application site is at Belmont Farm, Needwood, Staffordshire. DE13 9PH. The

application site is in a rural part of East Staffordshire where farming dominates the

landscape as the most common land use. The site lies roughly 5 miles west of

Burton–Upon-Trent.

1.3 This report considers the application against the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) and the East Staffordshire Borough’s Local Plan which was adopted 15th

October 2015 and covers the period from 2012-2031.

1.4 The preparation of this report by Mid West Planning Ltd has been commissioned by

Mr Michael Bloor of 47 Beacon Drive, Rolleston on Dove, Staffs, DE13 9EN. Mr Bloor

owns land and agricultural buildings immediately adjacent to the application site

which he uses for egg and poultry production. This report is written based on the

application documents and on information provided by Mr Bloor and his consultants.

1.5 This report is prepared by Philip Plant BSc (Hons) MRICS of Mid West Planning

Limited in accordance with these instructions. Phil Plant is a member of the Royal

Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and has over twelve years’ experience in

rural planning matters, advising both private and public sectors.

2. THE APPLICATION SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 The application site is outside of the development boundary and is situated on a

small mixed use light industrial development in an area of agricultural land. The

mixed use (B1, B2 and B8 uses) development includes an Equestrian retail outlet,

Gilspel Engineering and Belmont Shot Blasting. The application area as depicted on

the planning statement is approximately 150 square metres, adjacent to the

boundary hedge and a watercourse.

3. THE DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The development proposed is for retrospective planning permission to retain the

building and extraction equipment currently used by Belmont Shot Blasting Ltd for

the industrial glass grit shot blasting, powder coating and paint spraying of metal

items, wooden items, masonary and car and lorry chassis belonging to third parties.

This obviously involves the transportation to and from site of these items.

3.2 On 19th April 2013 planning permission was given for a building to be erected in

conjunction with Belmont Shot Blasting at this site (P/2013/00267) together with a

planning condition prohibiting any outside storage or working. At this time Mr Bloor

was not notified of the proposal by East Staffordshire Borough Council and the

application was approved without his knowledge.

4

3.3 Between June and October 2013 Belmont Shot Blasting Ltd erected the shed. The

shed was not erected in the position approved by the planning permission which

should have been in accordance with the plans dated as received on 11th March

2013. The shed was actually erected to the north and in a different orientation to

that agreed in the permission, closer to Mr Bloor’s agricultural holding.

3.4 The shed in its current and unlawful position comes within approximately 6 feet of a

building on Mr Bloor’s adjacent land, in which Mr Bloor stores machinery and chicken

feed.

3.5 Belmont Shot Blasting Ltd currently emits large volumes of dust and noise from the

shed which is not properly insulated either to prevent dust leakage or contain noise.

This dust according to a report commissioned by Michael Bloor in August 2016, from

Helen Ratcliffe-Wallis; Environmental Health and Safety Advisor, concluded that

levels of harmful substances found within the air dust on land adjacent to Belmont

Shot Blasting could lead to Impact to Health of Humans and Livestock. (Please see

Appendix One) She recommended that Mr Bloor contact the Environmental Health

Officer to investigate the potential breaches of The Environmental Protection Act

1990 Part III. The same concerns were raised by Retford Poultry Ltd who conducted

a dust survey to assess the effects on Mr Michael Bloor’s Free Range egg business,

please see appendix two.

3.6 Because of the seriousness of emissions of noise and dust from the shed, three

abatement notices were served upon Belmont Shot Blasting by East Staffordshire

Borough Council on the 28th April 2015, under the statutory nuisance regime

contained in the Environmental Health Protection Act 1990. These were issued

relating to various nuisances caused by Belmont Shot Blasting:

1. Noise from the extraction system

2. Noise created by the shot blasting

3. Dust emitted by the shot blasting

3.7 It would appear that Belmont Shot Blasting made no efforts to abate these alleged

nuisances. One would question why further notices have not been issued to

Belmont Shot Blasting in view of the continued public nuisance as evidenced by Mr

Bloor to East Staffordshire Borough Council.

3.8 Mr Bloor wishes to object to this planning application on the grounds that the noise

and dust emitted by the operation of Belmont Shot Basting are a public nuisance and

that the siting of the building is affecting Mr Bloor’s enjoyment of his land, and his

farming business. Furthermore, the granting of planning permission would conflict

with planning policies in The East Staffordshire Local Plan.

4. PLANNING POLICY

National Planning Policy

4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was introduced in March 2012 to

streamline planning policy at the national level. There are two key areas within the

NPPF which are particularly relevant to this proposal. The NPPF deals with plan

making and decision taking.

5

4.2 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that planning applications must be determined in

accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise. Paragraph 12 states that proposals that conflict with up-to-date

Local Plan policies should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate

otherwise.

4.3 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable

development. For plan making this means that local planning authorities should

“positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area”. For

decision taking this means approving proposals that would accord with the

development plan and where this is absent or out of date, grant planning permission

“unless the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits...”

4.4 Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that planning policies should support economic

growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive

approach to sustainable new development.

Local Planning Policy

4.5 The East Staffordshire Borough Council’s local plan was adopted 15th October 2015

and will cover the period 2012-2031 ‘The Local Plan is about managing change to

benefit communities and deliver sustainable development’.

4.6 Policies of the Local Plan which are particularly relevant to the proposal and should

be considered are:

o Principle 1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

o SO12 – Countryside

o Strategic Policy 1 – East Staffordshire approach to sustainable development

o Strategic Policy 2 – Settlement Hierarchy

o Strategic Policy 5 – Distribution of Employment Growth

o Strategic Policy 8 – Development Outside Settlement Boundaries

o Strategic Policy 14 – Rural Economy

o Strategic Policy 24 High Quality Design

5. CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES AGAINST PLANNING POLICY

National Planning Policy

5.1 Belmot Farm lies in open countryside on a narrow country lane. The site is well

outside of established development boundaries and given the use of the building,

which is dependent upon the delivery and collection of often large items on large

articulated vehicles, the site is not considered to be in a sustainable location.

5.2 Therefore given that the site and the development is not considered sustainable

development, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Furthermore the measurable harm, as identified by Mr Bloor, to the environment,

including to soils, water, air, and plants and animals and human health is considered

to be material factors that should be fully taken into account. The fact that the

Council saw fit to serve three abatement orders against the operator for noise and

dust emissions illustrates the seriousness of the impacts that take place as a result

of the operation of the shot blasting and paint spraying enterprise.

6

5.3 No serious measures have been taken to fully contain the dust and noise within the

shot blasting and paint spraying building. Silicone sealing the joints between the

cladding sheets and the drip flashing will not fully contain the dust within the

building envelope.

Local Planning Policy

5.4 Principle 1 reflects the NPPF in the presumption in favour of sustainable growth, and

for the reasons given above; the development does not accord with this most basic

Principle. The development does not secure development that improves economic

(other than for the applicant at the expense of Mr Bloor) social or environmental

conditions in the area.

5.5 SO12 – Countryside, the Spatial Objective of this policy is to protect, conserve and

enhance the local countryside including the diversity of wildlife. The activity

associated with Belmont Shot Blasting has been subject to three abatement notices

served in April 2015 by South Staffordshire Council, these relate to the leakage of

dust, the noise of the extraction system and the noise from the operations carried

out by Belmont Shot Blasting. It would appear, and indeed it is backed up by the

fact that the Council issued three abatement notices in 2015. The emission of dust

continues to be experienced by Mr Bloor, even after the building has been silicone

sealed and the extraction system updated. It is therefore considered that the shot

blasting and paint praying taking place at Belmont Shot Blasting constitute activities

that damages the environment, in particular, the countryside, biodiversity and soil,

water and air quality at this site, contravening policy SO12.

5.6 An independent expert’s report has been commissioned by East Staffordshire Council

which unfortunately is not published on the council website at the time of preparing

this statement. The Case Officer’s report however, refers to recommendations made

in the report, including further reductions in the emissions of noise and dust. Other

recommended planning conditions include the limiting of working hours, the use of

the building for shot blasting only, and ”no outside working”.

5.7 Further to this Spatial Objective, in chapter 2.42 of the local Plan under the heading

‘Limits to Development’ it is stated that ‘In the open countryside employment

development is accepted providing it supports uses accepted in a countryside

setting’. It is asserted that the processes associated with Belmont Shot Blasting and

the noise and dust resulting from these activities are activities more usually

accepted (with proper environmental protection measures) on an industrial estate in

an urban environment and not in open countryside where the predominant land use

is agriculture.

5.8 Strategic Policy 1 – Requires that development should be sustainable and should be

designed to protect the amenity of residential properties nearby through good design

and landscaping and that development should not harm biodiversity. As can be

seen in the photograph below the extraction unit that forms part of the current

proposal is already in place and dust still emits from the building.

5.9 The extraction unit and silicone sealing was in place prior to the writing of the

environmental assessment report which was undertaken by Helen Ratcliffe-Wallis,

Environmental Health and Safety Advisor in August 2016. Therefore we can assume

that despite the presence of this extraction unit, dust is continuing to be emitted

that could potentially cause harm to humans and livestock and by association cause

7

harm to the biodiversity of the immediate area and would therefore be contravening

Strategic Policy 1.

5.10 Strategic Policy 2 – Settlement Hierarchy sates that development in the open

countryside will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances. It is not thought

that Belmont Shot Blasting meets with any of the exceptional circumstances laid out

in the Local Plan.

5.11 Strategic Policy 5 – Distribution of Employment Growth 2012 – 2031 identifies 20ha

of employment land in nearby Burton upon Trent which should be protected for

employment uses including the B2 use of shot blasting. The applicant has not

demonstrated that there is no alternative sustainable site that could accommodate

his industrial enterprise rather than build a new industrial building in the

countryside.

5.12 Strategic Policy 8 – Development Outside Settlement Boundaries – ‘Development will

not be permitted unless it is essential to the support and viability of an existing

lawful business or the creation of a new business appropriate in the countryside’.

The subject building in the current location has not received planning permission and

is therefore not lawful. The applicant has not provided any reasoned justification in

terms of viability of the business requiring the building.

5.13 The industrial activities taking place at Belmot Shot Blasting are not appropriate

development in the open countryside due to the industrial nature of the shot blasting

powder coating and industrial paint spraying operations taking place. Furthermore,

the location is not sustainable in terms of transporting work pieces to and from the

site and the inability of workers to walk or use public transport to get to and from

work. Clearly there is no overriding need for this business to be located in the open

countryside, or clear benefit to the landscape or the conservation of a feature of

acknowledged importance.

5.14 The operation has a history of affecting the amenities enjoyed by other land users,

in particular Mr Bloor and his land adjacent to the application site. The proposal to

retain an industrial building in the countryside is tantamount to introducing a

considerable urban form into the countryside.

5.15 The building and operation has a very significant negative impact on the surrounding

areas, as demonstrated by Mr Bloor’s consultants. The operation has a negative

impact on the quality of nearby agricultural land, as identified by Mr Bloor through

testing of dust and farm produce. Please refer to the independent reposts at

Appendix 1 & 2 for more information.

5.16 Therefore, for the reasons at 6.12 – 6.15 above, the retention of the shot blasting

building does not accord with Strategic Policy 8.

5.17 Strategic Policy 14 – Rural Economy – Permission will be given for new employment

development outside of strategic villages, and industrial estates if it meets with

criteria of Strategic Policy 8. It is considered that this development does not meet

with criteria of Strategic Policy 8 for the reasons set out above. There are no

exceptional reasons for the shot blasting powder coating and paint spraying building

operations to be sited in open countryside, as opposed to being situated in an

existing lawful building, or on a designated employment which is a requirement of

8

Strategic Policy 14. Consequently the application does not accord with the

objectives of Strategic Policy 14.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The proposed retention of the shot blasting, powder coating and pain spraying

building does not accord with the objectives and policies held within National

Planning Policy and policies contained within East Staffordshire Borough Council’s

Local Plan.

6.2 The main concerns about this development are:

Development is outside the established development boundary in the open

countryside, and is therefore not sustainable development, requiring high

levels of vehicle movements, including materials and workers.

No viability assessment has been put forward by the applicant that proves the

need for this activity and development to take place in this location.

No assessment of available alternative suitable sites has been provided by

the applicant in support of his application.

The development has significant environmental impact.

The development is damaging surrounding agricultural land by producing

harmful dust which is being allowed to leak from the building.

The development is harming the biodiversity of the site and surrounding land

through noise and dust pollution.

The development contravenes East Staffordshire Borough Council planning

policies for development in the open countryside.

6.3 An independent assessment of the impact of the operation carried out by Helen

Ratcliffe-Wallis has raised very significant concerns about the operation, and analysis

on dust by Retford Poultry Partnership also raise very grave concerns about the

Belmot Shot Blasting operation.

Phil Plant

Mid West Planning

February 2017

9

Appendix One:

Letter from Helen Ratcliffe-Wallis Environmental Health and Safety Advisor.

10

11

12

13

Appendix Two:

Report from Radford Poultry Partnership Ltd

14