Proposed agricultural machinery and implement storage building.  

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

(Proposed agricultural machinery and implement storage building.)

(Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest.)

The 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs H Philpotts, Clerk to Burghill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs K Ager, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Pryce, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PE Crockett, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        The proposal would increase the size of the industrial site significantly.

·        It would have an adverse impact on a greenfield site and on local residents.

·        There was concern that it would exacerbate an existing flooding issue.

·        She shared the Parish Council’s concerns about noise and light pollution.

·        There were alternative sites at the Cattle Market and Three Elms trading estate that would offer a better, safer access for slow moving heavy traffic.

·        The Parish Council objected to the proposal and 29 letters of objection had also been received.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The Development Manager corrected paragraph 1.2 of the report, confirming that the building was larger than reported measuring 56m in length and with a depth of 12m.  The highest point was 6.6m with an eaves height of 5.15m as stated in the report.

·        Concern was expressed that the proposal appeared to seek to develop a greenfield site to provide additional space on an existing brownfield site. 

·        The proposal was for a large building and it would have an adverse impact on local residents.

·        There were suitable alternative sites at the Cattle Market and the Three Elms trading estate.

·        Paragraph 6.9 of the report seemed to suggest that the proposed development on a greenfield site would be constructed to a lower standard than would be required on either the Three Elms trading estate or Cattle Market sites.

·        The planning history of the site and its piecemeal development encouraged reservations about the design of the current proposal.

·        The economic argument advanced in support of the development was not sufficiently strong.

The Development Manager commented that the National Planning Policy Framework  (NPPF) and saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies E11 and E15 supported developments of the type proposed, provided buildings were of good design.  If permission were approved he requested that authority be delegated to officers after consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member to finalise details including drainage. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her opposition to the proposal.

The following reasons were advanced for refusing permission:  the development was in the open countryside, was contrary to the NPPF and UDP policies E11 and E15 and there were more suitable alternative sites.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that:

i           the development was in the open countryside;

ii          it was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Council’s Unitary Development Plan DP policies E11 (siting of the development) and E15 (development on greenfield sites); and

(iii)       there were more suitable alternative sites.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.56 am and 12.07 pm.)