Agenda item

Application Proposal: Erection of food processing and packaging building, with new access and parking area and retention of existing building as offices.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He advised members that following the publication of his report, he now suggested a further condition 8 which would control the external lighting at the application site.

He explained that the application was for a building which would be used for food processing and packaging. He explained that the business was growing but that the application was not for an extension as other buildings would be demolished and recommended that the application be approved.

Dr Dinge, representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the planning application. He explained that a B2 use of the site would result in an increase in noise, smells and light pollution and could result in a terrible precedent for the village. He advised that South Barrow had no infrastructure, no school, bad roads, and slow internet. He further advised that there had been no local support for this application and that there are plenty of other sites which would be suitable.

Mrs J Chaudoir, Mrs J Cox, Mr S Chaudoir, Mr A Martin and Mr D Harrison spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Buildings are dominant structures which impact the village.

·         Concern over future use of the building for commercial use

·         Site already has permission for 16 ‘glamping’ units and barn conversions which will increase traffic through the village.

·         Concern was raised over light pollution.

·         The business should move to a purpose built business park as the site is unsuitable.

·         Traffic is a major consideration. There are no street lights or footpaths and the road is used by school buses.

·         Road is unsuitable for large vehicles.

·         Permission was granted for a small start-up business only. Current activity is unlawful and the business is operating without permission.

·         The statement that says the site is beyond the 30mph speed limit is incorrect.

·         No benefit is provided to the village.

Mr N Forrest, the agent, addressed the Committee. He described this as a small enterprise which provided local employment. He explained that the planning application provided less total floor area than existing as existing buildings would be demolished. He further advised that lorries would be able to turn around on the site which would reduce existing problems with lorries manoeuvring in the road. He pointed out that the roof ridge had been lowered and the parking, trees and hedges had been identified and thought that the application was acceptable in planning terms.

Councillor Nick Weeks, the Ward Member, advised members that although he wanted to support local businesses, he felt that the roads were inadequate. He further advised that he did not want to see jobs lost or future traffic problems in the village.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, also Ward Member, advised members that the applicant had done well to develop a successful business. However, he further pointed out that the planning permission which had been approved was for 3 members of staff, not for 10 and could see the business growing further. For this reason, he suggested that the business should be relocated to a site on a larger road, with sufficient parking and on a site which could be easily developed. 

During the discussion, the Area Lead (North/East) clarified that the original permission was for food production and not specifically B1 or B2 use and that there was no restriction on the number of staff. He further clarified that if the land were sold, the permission and use would continue on the land and to any further occupiers on the site.

Concern was also raised over the possibility of odours from the site and it was suggested that filters could be conditioned.

It was proposed that the application be approved, as per the officer’s recommendation, subject to an additional condition to ensure that filters are provided to limit odours from the site. This proposal was not seconded.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 7 in support and 1 against.

Members agreed that the Development Control team were to investigate the options for enforcement against the unauthorised use of parts of the site by the applicant in consultation with the Ward Member and Chairman of Area East Committee.

RESOLVED:  that planning permission 16/01225/FUL be refused contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

01.       The proposal, by reason of its rural location, scale and design of the building and increased odours and traffic movements, would fail to respect the character of the locality and would give rise to unacceptable impacts on residential amenity and highways safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policies SS2, EQ2, EQ7, TA5 and EP4 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework

(Voting: 7 in favour and 1 against)