Issue - meetings

Councillor Ross Mackinnon declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied on the item. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01480/FUL in respect of the demolition of an existing outbuilding and polytunnels and erection of a building in flexible use for storage or distribution (Use Class B8) and/or for any light industrial process within Use Class E, with associated access track and parking area.

Ms Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, gave a detailed presentation on the application and highlighted the key points.

Removal of Speaking Rights

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Gareth Osborn, Jim Forrester, Charles Romaine (joint submission on behalf of multiple named objectors), Peter Neal, Rebecca Neal and Meg Nelson, objectors, and Duncan and Helen Varley and Sophie Berry, applicants and agent.

Objector Submission Summary:

The written summarised submission from Gareth Osborn, Jim Forrester, Charles Romaine (joint submission on behalf of multiple named objectors), Peter Neal, Rebecca Neal and Meg Nelson, was read out as follows:

·         The development is outside of a defined settlement boundary and within the AONB. There has been no demonstrated need for the development as to justify development in this location.

·         The existing mixed-use site will be significantly reduced by the units and the dominating 100m access road, reducing its ability/flexibility to operate as a viable rural business in the future.

·         The site is not within a sustainable or accessible location which is contrary to all planning policies. The proposal scheme as a whole is contrary to the Development Plan.

·         Industrial uses should be directed to Protected Employment Areas. There are existing vacant farm buildings that could be used instead of the proposal scheme.

·         The investment into the infrastructure required for the development will ensure that the units will be expensive to rent for potential occupiers, and will make the proposal commercially unviable in terms of construction.

·         Previous housing development applications on this site have been refused by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27