Discharge of a planning obligation.

Discharge of a planning obligation.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of an additional letter of objection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. McHarg spoke on behalf of Stretton Sugwas Council and Mr. Marshall spoke against the application.  Mr. Hays and Mr. Crump spoke in support of the application.

Councillor R.I. Matthews, the Local Ward Member, commented that the Section 106 Planning Obligation had been placed on the land for a very valid reason, particularly given the number of complaints received about the disturbance caused by activities on the site.  He felt that successful manufacturers should be encouraged but was concerned that the business had outgrown this site and any further development would have a significant detrimental impact on the locality, particularly with regard to the nearby historic church.  He commented that the residential use of the land would be more acceptable to local residents than manufacturing use.  It was proposed that the discharge of the planning obligation should be refused given the potential detrimental impact on the amenities of residents, that the proposal would result in the over development of the site, that development would damage the rural character of the area and would be detrimental to highway safety.

The Legal Practice Manager clarified the implications of refusing to discharge the planning obligation in view of the planning permission for the erection of a new workshop building and expansion of service/storage yard (DCCW2005/3733/F refers).

The Principal Planning Officer commented that the Parish Council had suggested a set of restrictions that could be substituted for the Section 106 Planning Obligation and these were covered under the recently approved expansion proposals and were, therefore, under the control of the Enforcement Team.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox noted that the voting was very close when the previous application was considered and that substantial arguments were made against the proposal, particularly given the view of local residents that the business was outgrowing its viability in this location.  He noted that the Section 106 Planning Obligation had been entered into voluntarily and he felt that it should not be reneged upon.

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes spoke in support of the recommendation and felt that the business should be supported.  She noted that quarrying had generated significant levels of traffic in the past and felt that this application would have relatively minimal impact on the local road network. 

Councillor J.C. Mayson felt unable to support the lifting of the planning obligation which had been entered into as recently as 1998.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell commented that he sought to support rural business initiatives but felt that the planning obligation should not be discharged until it could be demonstrated that the business was complying with all obligations and conditions imposed.

A number of Members expressed concerns about alleged breaches of conditions in relation to this site and the resulting impact on the amenities enjoyed by local residents.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas spoke in support of the expansion of the business but sought clarification about the relationship of the Section 106 to the approved development scheme.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this application sought the formal discharge of the planning obligation to reflect the approved expansion of the business operation.  In response to a question from Councillor R.M. Wilson, the Legal Practice Manager advised that the use of the term ‘covenant’ was a misnomer in this instance and explained the purpose and use of the planning obligation.  Following further comments by Members, the Chairman noted that the planning obligation effectively prevented the land from being developed and would need to be discharged if the expansion proposals were to be implemented.

Councillor Thomas suggested that officers be delegated to approve the application subject to securing the safeguards sought by the Parish Council, in consultation with the Local Ward Member and the Chairman.

Councillor Matthews commented that conditions could not mitigate the significant visual impact of the expansion proposals upon the locality.

A motion to refuse the application failed and the recommendation was then approved.

RESOLVED:

That the Section 106 Planning Obligation be discharged.