Agenda item

Councillor Robert Sharp had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted that the application was for a light industrial B1 use.  A previous application had been considered in 2002 when it had been agreed that permission be granted subject to a legal agreement being entered into with a named occupant.  In relation to the current application, it had not been possible to secure a named tenant despite two advertisements by the applicant.

Further to the report, the Committee noted that letters had been received from the owners of the adjacent properties reiterating previous concerns.  Furthermore, one letter had been received from the owner of the neighbouring barns raising concerns that the Council should stand by its previous decision that a named occupant be required.

Mr Nick Laister made a statement on behalf of the neighbouring residents objecting to the application, raising concerns regarding the creation of an industrial estate in the open countryside.  He reported that Members had consistently stated that the occupier should be named and he could see no reason why the Committee would now have a changed opinion.  He commented that the Committee had been concerned regarding noise attenuation measures and he reported that planning policy guidance stated that the re-use of properly constructed buildings would be appropriate which was not the case here.  He suggested that approval of the application would set a precedent for industrial development in the open countryside and he drew Members attention to a letter circulated raising these concerns.

Mrs Hearn, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application, referring to the advertisements seeking a named occupier.  Any enquiries received had diminished because without the benefit of planning permission interest was non-existent.  She commented that part of the application was retrospective and she specifically referred to the milking business and questioned whether planning permission was required because this was an agricultural use.  She commented on concerns regarding toxic waste, advising that this was not the case and should be discounted.  She advised that the County Engineer had no objection and that there were no objections raised from Environmental Health except for hours of use.  She referred to traffic, advising that there existed a right of way and the traffic level would be reduced.  He advised that a farm diversification plan had been submitted and that she was willing to abide by the conditions imposed on the previous permission.  Finally, she sought approval of the application to resolve the unacceptable impasse.

The local Member spoke in support of the application advising that there would be fewer vehicle movements and that it was not possible for the applicant to secure a named user without the benefit of planning permission.

Members supported the application noting that by its definition a B1 use would not cause any nuisance.

By 15 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application STA/3373/8 subject to:-

(1)        the submission of a Farm Diversification Plan;

(2)       the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation to secure the benefits of the farm diversification plan; and

(3)       conditions relating to landscaping and restricting the use of the buildings to Class B1(C).