Proposed erection of live-work unit for occupation by applicant and his family in conjunction with adjoining workshop.

Application approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Campbell and Mr Thomas, on behalf the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution, the local ward member spoke on the application. As the house that is being proposed in the application is not accommodated by policy in the local plan, the NPPF is being looked at as a defence of the application being approved. She noted that since the pandemic, economic circumstances have changed significantly in line with paragraph 82 of the NPPF. She added that economically, the application is viable and the security of the site is important to the business against the continued threat of theft. Socially, the NPPF supports strong and vibrant communities which she noted the application would support. Lastly, the environmental objective of the NPPF to protect and enhance the environment is considered by making the best use of land as proposed in the application. In conclusion, the local ward member hoped the NPPF would be used as a guide to support the application.

The committee debated the application. During consideration of the application the committee raised the following principal points:

-          Concern was raised about the potential of precedent being set by ignoring core strategy.

-          In the absence of a Neighbourhood Development Plan, there is clear support for the application. If there was an NDP, there would have been a defined settlement boundary to give some idea as to what would be allowed in the area.

-          If the application is not in open countryside, then the NPPF can provide flexibility.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

A motion that the application be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation to support business which will prevent further crime on the site, particularly night-time burglaries, and in line with NPPF policy 80E (point 2) that references enhancing the immediate setting and 82D which states that the application should ‘be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan’. Conditions were proposed to be delegated to officers to set and the motion was proposed by Councillor Bruce Baker and seconded by Councillor Simeon Cole. The motion was put to the vote and carried by a simple majority.

Resolved:

The application be approved due to NPPF policies 80E: the application ‘would significantly enhance its immediate setting’; and 82D: the application should ‘flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan.

That authority is delegated to officers to draft and impose conditions for the planning permission, in consultation with the chairperson and vice chairperson of the Planning and Regulatory Committee.