Reference number: R12/2128
Site address: Brinklow Marina, Cathiron Lane, Brinklow, Rugby
Description: Retention of four storage containers (containers shown cross hatched on drawing P1-935 Rev D) including the creation of hard surfacing (cross hatched blue on drawing P1 - 935 Rev D).
Case Officer Name & Number: Nathan Lowde 01788 533725
Description proposal:
The application seeks the retention of four storage containers (one of which is an anti-vandal office unit) and the creation of a hard-surfaced area to the south-east corner of the site. The application for a re-submission of a previously refused application. It was considered under the previous application that the development constituted inappropriate development within the Green Belt with no special circumstances to justify the grant of planning permission, and that the development was harmful to the openness of the green belt and character of the area.
Description of site:
The application site is located to the north-west of the Rugby Urban Area within the West Midlands Green Belt. The site is an established marina. Access to the site is off Cathiron Lane. There is a public right of way which runs along the north-west boundary of the site ref: R301.
Third Party Comments
Neighbours (1 objection with a petition with 27 signatures)
- Site located within the Green Belt
- Would be perceived as an industrial estate and is not in keeping with the surrounding area
- There is no need for the containers
- Permanent residences on the boats
- Loss of privacy
- Loss of character to the surrounding countryside
Parish Council
- The marina is a blot on the attractive landscape
- Owner has not complied with conditions imposed by the original planning permission
- The application is a back-door means of extending the buildings on site
Third party comments following amended description
Neighbours (2 objection letters)
- Retention of containers further commits to the eyesore that has been created on what was green belt land visible from the neighbouring property Fennis Fields Farm.
- Light pollution
- The site has been developed into an industrial eyesore taking away from the rural community its heritage of the farming community and green belt land.
- Loss of privacy
- Drainage issues on neighbouring land
Parish Council
- Expansion by stealth of the marina
- Application for siting of containers is essentially an application for buildings of officers and storage buildings
- Development is an eye sore , especially when viewed from the top of the hill in King’s Newnham
Relevant planning history
R11/1087 – Certificate of Lawfulness for the siting of one storage container (highlighted blue on the attached site plan), one portacabin (highlighted green on the attached site plan), construction of internal road (outlined yellow on the attached site plan), construction of hard standing (outlined yellow on the attached site plan) ,sheet piling, two switch rooms (highlighted red on attached site plan) and two ponds- Approved 15/02/2012.
R11/1121 - Retention of three containers including the creation of a compound area and siting of a container. - Refused 08/02/2013
R03/0159/23111/P - Construction of 200 berth mooring basin with associated services and facilities, car parking, vehicular access road, and temporary security building. – Approved 29.05.2003
Relevant policies and guidance
Rugby Borough LDF Core Strategy (2011)
CS1 – Development Hierarchy complies
CS16 – Sustainable Design complies
National Planning Guidance
The site is located outside of the defined settlement boundary within the West Midlands Green Belt. Policy CS1 as contained within the Rugby Borough Core Strategy 2011 sets out the settlement hierarchy which seeks to ensure that the most sustainable location are considered ahead of those further down the hierarchy. The purpose of the settlement hierarchy is to ensure the most sustainable location for development within the Borough.
For countryside locations CS1 is specifically restrictive on new development promoted due to its inherently unsustainable nature. The hierarch does not exclude Green Belt locations but they are at the bottom of this sequential approach. In relation to Greenbelt, CS1 states: “New Development will be resisted: only where national policy on Green Belt allows will development be permitted.” The main purpose of this policy is to ensure that the most sustainable locations for new development are considered ahead of those further down the hierarchy.
As stated by the applicant within the Design and Access Statement, the containers and the office that the application relates to would be used ancillary for the maintenance, administration and operations of the marina and used to provide storage of maintenance and administration equipment, tools supplies and spares. A private and confidential document has been produced by the applicant detailing the list of equipment, good and material stored within the containers. The case officer has also been out on site and observed one of containers being opened with equipment inside ancillary to the maintenance of the marina. It this therefore considered that the containers are used ancillary to the storage of equipment required for the maintenance of the marina. Indeed it is not uncommon for marinas to have storage buildings on site for house equipment and goods required for the maintenance of the marina. A condition shall be attached to ensure that the containers are only used ancillary to the marina. It is therefore considered that the retention of the containers constitute appropriate development within the green belt in accordance with policy CS1 and guidance contained within the NPPF.
In terms of visual amenity, ordinary containers within a rural location would constitute a stark, industrial appearance upon the landscape. However, in respect to the application site when viewed in contexts to the marina and the metal boats mooring at the marina, together with the lawful containers and portacabin on site, the retention of these containers on the application site would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy CS16 of the Core Strategy. Whilst planning permission was previously refused for the retention of these containers on the basis of visual amenity, regard was not given to the contexts of these containers in relation to the marina. In addition to this, the applicant has also pointed would that under permitted development a 2 metre high security fencing such as palisade fencing could be erected around this compound area. The applicant is agreeable to provide screen planting.
In terms of impact upon the openness of the greenbelt, the proposed development would impact upon openness, however, when viewed in context with the marina and its closeproximately to other lawful development on the site, its impact is not considered to be significant.
Assessment of Proposal
Approval subject to conditions
Report prepared by: Nathan Lowde 24 February 2014
Report Sheet