Staunton firm Midland Feeds' plans for expansion rejected a second time

A business has had its plans for expansion turned down for the second time.

Planning members of Newark and Sherwood District Council had before them a resubmitted application from Midland Feeds to expand its site at Staunton Industrial Estate.

When members rejected the plan last year, they said the expansion couldn't be considered as small-scale or of a proportionate nature.

Their grounds for refusal this time did not change.

Planning officer Laura Gardner said the plan would be contrary to the council's neighbourhood plan but that there were no other sites available to hold the development.

Ward member Ivor Walker said: "I've been to the site and had a good look around and from Staunton village itself and having read all the extra information the company has been able to acquire new contracts — one being a Newark company in fact.

"This enables them to mill food and collect waste, chocolate and cereals etcetera from local companies. They had an offer of 4,000 tonnes of flour but through lack of space could only take 1,200 tonnes.

"This is a growing a much-needed company that needs to expand — but where?"

Mr Walker added part of the land where the business wanted to extend was already being used and that the nearby pond needed to be shielded by a bound of trees.

"I'm nearly undecided. What moves me more slightly to accepting the recommendation is the fact I think Staunton are undecided as well, so it's very much in the balance and I'm very much in the balance also," he said.

"If it was to be subject to planning, then certainly I would want the tree bound and also downward lighting because the lights that are already there aren't very good at all."

Fellow ward member Keith Walker supported the application.

Sue Saddington said: "This has come about somewhat by creep — it keeps building up as they require more land and you can't blame them for that, they want to increase their business.

"What we need to be considerate about here is that Staunton is a small village and as the local member has just said he would like it to have trees and boundary to prevent this being such a big obvious mass — and try and keep the countryside a little more private."

Deputy planning chairman Linda Dales said she didn't support the plans when they last came to committee and that she couldn't see any reason why she should change her view.

"As far as I'm concerned it remains not the kind of business that necessarily needs a rural location, it's a storage and distribution business essentially which would be better suited to one of our allocated sites," she said.

"I can't see it's going to create significant employment either, the employees are coming with them and it would be creating more traffic.

"I worry it will establish a principle for this kind of development here; we are in the open countryside, it is good-quality agricultural land and it is not in accordance with our own development plan — so for those reasons I can't change my view."

Penny Rainbow said she was happy to support the proposals this time around.

Chairman Roger Blaney said he couldn't because it was not a small-scale or proportionate expansion.

He said: "I think the existing premises amount to something like 20sq ft, and this application is for a further 10,000 — the size of its current establishment at Bottesford which would be relocated to Staunton."

However, he added the applicant quoted upwards of 50,000sq ft to other agents in the area.

The plans were refused.