Agenda item

The Head of Planning verbally reported an additional item of late correspondence which sought deferral of the item in the interests of ‘natural justice’ so that an objector could speak.  The Planning Committee was advised that the request to speak was not made within the deadline set out in the Protocol.

In light of the late correspondence received shortly before the meeting, which was immediately distributed by the Planning Officers to the Members of the Planning Committee at the start of the meeting, the Chair granted a 10 minute pause in proceedings for Members to have further time to absorb the late correspondence before proceeding with this application.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to fifteen conditions, as outlined in the report. Late correspondence was also received in respect of this application.

In noting the detail of the application, Members expressed their appreciation of the concerns raised in regard to the application, both in terms of landscape and nuisance. A Member noted that there was no objection from the AONB office, providing screening was carried out and it was asked how we would be able to effectively monitor and maintain this. In response the Head of Planning advised the Committee that there was a condition recommended in the report for a management plan for the landscaping. The Development Management Team’s Monitoring & Enforcement Officer would ensure that this condition is complied with and maintained, and in the case the landscaping is not maintained or dies, there would be enforcement powers to take action if the planning application was granted.

We were also informed by the Head of Planning that there had been objections made in regard to the hours of operation of the repair garage not being enforced. But at present there are no planning conditions in place to enforce as the use is unauthorised.

A Member asked if the previous High Court Action in 2014 had been addressed. In answer we were told that the findings of the High Court in the 2014 case had been addressed by officers and that they had given proper consideration to the application received and presented to the Planning Committee today.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2015/01336 be approved subject to amending condition 7 to refer to ‘light’ vehicles, amending condition 15 to ensure timber cladding is retained in perpetuity and Members noting that the Officers had carried out a revised environmental impact assessment in light of the otter hole feature.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval - 12

Against approval - 0

Abstentions – 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that DC/2015/01336 be approved subject to amending condition 7 to refer to ‘light’ vehicles, amending condition 15 to ensure timber cladding is retained in perpetuity and Members noting that the Officers had carried out a revised environmental impact assessment in light of the otter hole feature.