Minutes:
Public participation:
Mr Tucker and Mr Pearce spoke in support of the application.
The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended that the application for approval subject to conditions – including a recommended amendment to the condition in the report restricting hours of operation so that they corresponded with those in the original application. Therefore it was recommended that he wording of condition 6 should read as follows:
The use hereby approved shall only take place during the hours of 08:0 and 18:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 and 13:00 Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, bank or public holidays.
Councillor Ernie Clark, as the local member, spoke in relation to the
application.
Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.
Issues discussed in the course of the debate included: the impact on amenity of neighbours, the operation of the business, the access to the site, the position of the business, the previous use of the building, the proximity to other buildings, the relevance of planning policies supporting rural life, the times of use, the impact of noise, the storage of materials, that character of the area and the appropriateness of the location of the business.
Councillor Ernie Clark proposed, and Councillor Dennis Drewett seconded, that the application be refused as the proposed development would result in an adverse impact on the amenity and character of the area, contrary to core policy 48.
The proposal, being put to vote, was lost. Councillor Ernie Clark’s vote for the motion to refuse was recorded.
In the subsequent debate it was noted that, as the application was retrospective, condition one did not apply and should be removed.
Councillor Jonathon Seed proposed and Councillor Pip Ridout seconded that the permission should be granted in line with the officers amended recommendations.
At the end of the debate the meeting;
Resolved to approve permission subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapprovedplans: LDC.1873_002,LDC.1873_001,LDC.1873_003and LDC.1873_004receivedthe16thDecember2014.
REASON:Fortheavoidanceof doubtandin theinterestsofproperplanning.
REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions/extensions or external alterations, or the installation of any outdoor plant/machinery.
REASON: In the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of the area.
REASON: In the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of the area.
REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area.
REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area.
REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area.
REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area.
REASON: Permission would not normally be granted for this development, but regard has been paid to the personal circumstances of the applicant which are considered, exceptionally in this case, to be sufficient to outweigh the normal planning policy considerations which would normally lead to a refusal of planning permission.
INFORMATIVE
The applicant is advised to seek professional advice with regard to the provision of suitable dust extraction equipment in order to further protect the health and safety of employees.
Admin Note: Councillor Ernie Clark’s vote was recorded against the permission.
Supporting documents: