Landowner denied permission to store vehicles on site after residents raise concerns

Rob Kendall sought retrospective consent from Stafford Borough Council to continue using the land next to a home in Goosemoor, near Church Eaton, for storage.

But the application met with 17 objections from residents of the hamlet, as well as the area’s parish council which highlighted the “poor highway network” and said the plans were not in keeping with the character of the area.

Councillor Mark Winnington called in the plans for consideration by the borough authority’s planning committee because of concerns about the change of use’s effect on the street scene and current usage of the site.

A design statement submitted as part of the application stated that Mr Kendall had owned the property and land, but retained the land for personal use after selling the property. There is a single garage and outhouse on the the 273 sq m section of land at Goosemoor Lane.

The statement said: “He keeps his motorhome and other personal vehicles at the site as Mr Kendal uses the garage at the location (to) store equipment used to service his vehicles. The development is the retrospective change of use of land for residential to private land, removing the association of the land from (the property).

“There are no proposed changes to the land topography and how it currently looks, as it is only used to store Mr Kendal’s personal effects and vehicles. The site has a history of vehicle movements through the use of the site as a residential dwelling; the proposals will not increase the number of vehicle movements to and from the site.”

More than a dozen members of the public attended Wednesday’s planning committee meeting to hear proceedings. Jason Grew, who spoke against the application on behalf of fellow residents on Wednesday, said: “Representation was made to SBC in February 2022 in regard to inappropriate activity prior to the application for change of use, including nuisance, ongoing noise pollution from a digger, alleged permanent residency and bonfires close to propane bottles.

“Since acquiring the garden, and up until planning submission, the applicant permanently parked a dilapidated camper van, a Transit van, a digger, a pick-up, a Suzuki hatch, an Astra estate and two vans, utilising all available garden space and garage frontage and overspilling onto the single track lane, resulting in significant visual impact and narrowing for farm traffic, cyclists and horse riders. Permanent utilisation at such scale ridicules the statement in the committee report that usage is no more harmful than a standard domestic garage.”

The application was recommended for approval by planning officers ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, where no-one came forward to speak in support of the proposals. But committee members went against the officers’ recommendation and voted to refuse permission due to the impact on the rural character of the area.

Members were also concerned about the installation of a 1.8m fence around the site. The structure, which was not included as part of the application, was described as “permitted development” in the committee report but councillors questioned if it was a lawful structure at Wednesday’s meeting due its distance from the public highway.