Ward: Mortimer

Use of land and erection of workshop and office for coach hire business.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the proposal had been presented to the Sub-Committee on 13th July, 2005 and it was resolved that Officers be delegated to approve the application, subject to the applicant first satisfying the requirements of the Environment Agency and the Environment Agency withdrawing its objection to the application.  He advised that the applicant had subsequently submitted a Flood Risk Assessment but the Environment Agency maintained their objection to the proposed development.  It was noted that, if Members were minded to approve the application, Planning Policy Guidance 25 on Development and Flood Risk advised that the Environment Agency should be re-notified to explain why material planning considerations outweigh the objection and to give the Environment Agency the opportunity to make further representations.

Councillor Mrs. L.O. Barnett, the Local Ward Member, noted the level of support voiced by Members when this proposal was considered last and stressed the importance of ensuring the survival of rural businesses.  Councillor Mrs. Barnett commented that there was no other suitable site in Leintwardine and there appeared to be negligible risks, particularly as the proposal would accommodate coaches and not housing.  She noted the credentials of the author of the Flood Risk Assessment and felt that Officers were not in a position to question whether it was a good assessment.

The Northern Team Leader responded that he was unaware of any complaints about the accuracy of the Flood Risk Assessment.

Councillor Mrs. Barnett commented that there were other sites subject to a greater risk of flooding in the area and felt that the applicant was being unduly hindered.  She noted that the Environment Agency considered the site to be at risk during the 1 in 100 year flood event but felt that this was not a sufficient reason for refusal considering the specific use proposed and that poorly maintained ditches were probably to blame for any flood risk.  The importance of rural business and, in this case, rural transport was emphasised.

Councillor W.L.S. Bowen supported the Local Ward Member and noted that there was a similar development nearby and felt that it would be irrational to refuse this application.

In response to a question from Councillor J.P. Thomas, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Flood Risk Assessment that was distributed to Member via e-mail was the same as that submitted to the Environment Agency.  Councillor Thomas noted that the potential flood level might be around 0.45m and felt that the effects of this would be minimal given the proposed use.

Councillor T.M. James felt that this proposal was unlikely to add to the flood risk and there was no evidence that local residents considered themselves to be in peril.  He added that, given the specific nature of the business and they way in which it operated, the vehicles could be moved easily if flooding was imminent.

RESOLVED:

The Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject to any conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee.

If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to approve the application subject to such conditions referred to above.

[Note:            Following the vote on this item, the Development Control Manager advised that he would refer the application to the Head of Planning Services so that the Environment Agency was provided with the opportunity to make further representations as required by PPG25.

Councillor Mrs. Barnett expressed her discontent that this matter could have been resolved following the 13th July, 2005 meeting and did not feel that there should be any further delay given the particular circumstances of the applicant.  Other Members felt that the decision to approve the application should stand given the reasons put forward.

In response, the Legal Practice Manager clarified the referral procedure.]