Agenda item

It was highlighted that the County Engineer had objected to the proposal details of which were set out in the report and it was noted that the use 8 years ago was not relevant.

Mr P Waddy the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application asking the Committee to consider the application in regard to the Lockinge Estates as a whole.  He referred to matters already covered in the report explaining that the site had been used for storage since 2002 and that sustainability was the key issue in this case.  He commented that concerns regarding increased vehicle movements and parking were unfounded and that submitted with the proposal was a traffic count detailing vehicle movements.  He commented that the number of staff quoted was incorrect.  He advised that a section 106 agreement would limit the traffic.  He referred to the local businesses using the site commenting that its use was economically viable for them.  He explained that Red Barn only was used for storage but that there was no one based there.  He reported that the views of the CountyEngineer were concerning in that he had received comments saying there were no objections to the proposals.  He noted that the proposed section 106 agreement would restrict the use of the site for businesses on the estate and stated that Circular 5 of 2005 stated that planning permission should not be refused where a section 106 agreement could make a proposal acceptable.  He commented that the proposal enabled local businesses to continue and that there was a special case to approve this application particularly having regard to the local employment.

The Officers clarified that the County Engineer had submitted comments raising no objection but had then changed his view to a recommendation of refusal.  It was explained that the report referred to the most recent comments of the Highway Authority.  Furthermore, in response to the comments made regarding special exceptions and what could be contained within a section 106 agreement and what conditions were relevant, the Officers referred to Circular 11/95 and Planning Policy Guidance 4 (PPG4), relevant extracts of which were read out at the meeting.  It was noted that restricting occupancy did not make a proposal more acceptable.

Some Members spoke against the proposal noting that the proposal was contrary to planning policy as set out in the report and that the County Engineer had objected.  It was considered that there were no exceptional circumstances to approve the proposal in this case and that to do so would be unreasonable and would set a precedent for similar applications.

One Member noted the advice referred to in Circular 11/95 and PPG4 commenting what whilst not wishing to prejudice local businesses, the scale of the proposal could become quite out of proportion and it could be difficult to refuse similar applications on other sites in the open countryside. It was noted that the buildings were not of such high quality that their retention would be required.

In response to a comment made, the Officers reported that consideration of enforcement action would be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Committee.

By 13 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application ARD/507/1 be refused for the reason set out in the report.