A plant hire firm in the Herefordshire countryside has been told new buildings to expand the business aren’t allowed.

Local Hire Services, which hires out machinery, tools and site equipment, had sought retrospective permission for two buildings it had put up at its Lower Woodend site by Stoke Lacy near Bromyard.

This followed a visit from council enforcement officers, who had been “aware of the site for a number of years”, according to the application.

RELATED NEWS:

Rather than take enforcement action against the unauthorised buildings, they suggested the retrospective planning application to approve them.

For security reasons the business had developed around the owners’ rural home, and that it works on a delivery basis with no customers calling, the application explained.

There were no objections to the expanded premises from council officers over the plan’s highways, ecology or noise impact.

OTHER NEWS:

The council’s economic development officer said the county “will take flexibility in terms of supporting businesses that underpin the rural economy, and recognise that local businesses are key within it”.

Stoke Lacy parish council was also supportive but wanted opening hours restricted and the access road assessed.

But nearby residents were less happy, with nine submitting 11 objections in all.

Lawrence Bleasdale said the parish council “has been typically spineless” in its response, and that the spot was “completely unsuitable” for such a business.

David Leverington said regularly moving “very large” items, some on a trailer, “is not consistent with a business serviced by a narrow lane in the middle of the countryside”.

Some vehicles “have had to be rescued” from a deep ditch alongside the road, he said, while the business’ expansion had brought “increased noise, dust and lighting”.

Vehicle movements have been as early as 5am and as late as 11pm, seven days a week, Philip Platt claimed.

These appeared to convince council planning officer Gemma Webster, who concluded the expanded business constituted “unsustainable development that would have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of nearby neighbours”, while the information supplied on surface water drainage was inadequate.