Proposed removal of condition 4 and variation of condition 16 of planning permission P163902/f (demolition of 5no. existing redundant agricultural outbuildings to facilitate expansion of existing restaurant and following events facilities: function suite, fine dining restaurant and lounge, conference space and 16no. Accommodation suites).

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed removal of condition 4 and variation of condition 16 of planning permission p163902/f (demolition of 5no. Existing redundant agricultural outbuildings to facilitate expansion of existing restaurant and following events facilities: function suite, fine dining restaurant and lounge, conference space and 16no. accommodation suites)).

(Councillor Bowen indicated that he had not been present for the entire discussion.  Accordingly he had no right to vote)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

The update included counsel’s advice on behalf of the applicant.  Representations from local residents objecting to the application including legal opinion were also included.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mrs J Bromley of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the proposal as a virtual attendee.  Mrs L Kershaw a local resident, spoke in objection to the application as a virtual attendee.  Mr B Greenaway, the applicant’s agent submitted a recorded statement.  This was played to the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Shaw, spoke on the application.  He expressed detailed reservations.  In summary, he highlighted the concern of local residents about the adverse effect on local amenity. He questioned the assertion that there was no difference between the impact on amenity of conferences and weddings.  He noted that there had been no reference to weddings in the original application.  He considered that a condition restricting the use of the function room was reasonable.  He referenced the legal opinions on the application included in the schedule of updates.  If the Committee was minded to approve the application any permission should be temporary to allow the impact to be assessed.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Development Manager commented that a principal consideration was the balance between residential amenity and the continued economic viability of the business.  If the Committee were minded to refuse the application paragraph 180 of the NPPF would appear to be one ground for refusal.  He subsequently sought and received clarification that the Committee was minded to refuse the application on grounds of both amenity and highway safety

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that, whilst a difficult decision, on balance he considered refusal would be the correct course.  The applicant could submit an application that was more limited in scope, mindful of local concerns.  He noted also the suggestion that consideration be given to the use of acoustic rather than amplified music.  He supported policies RA6 and SD1 as grounds for refusal along with policy MT1 given concerns about highway safety.

A motion that the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendation, on the basis of policies RA6, SD1 and MT1 and paragraphs 109 and 180 of the NPPF was carried.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development was contrary to policies RA6, SD1 and MT1 and paragraphs 109 and 180 of the NPPF, and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee.

(The meeting adjourned between 15.35 and 15.40.)