Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 2 No. commercial buildings with the provision for car parking, access and turning areas. The proposed buildings are to provide employment opportunity for SME businesses and to the local residents of Merriott.

The Agency Planner presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and highlighted the red line for the application included access via Tail Mill Lane. He noted the principle of the development and buildings were considered to be acceptable, however the proposed access road was considered to cause visual harm to the open countryside.

In response to questions from members, some of the points clarified by the Agency Planner and Lead Specialist (Planning) included:

·         it was unclear why the applicant had chosen not to utilise the existing access at the top of the site. The application needed to be considered with the new access arrangement.

·         Clarity regarding how much of the existing hardstanding would be for the new build.

·         No use classes had been mentioned in the report as the officer recommendation was for refusal. If members were minded to approve the application, use classes could be included in the conditions.

·         If members were minded to approve and allow the new road it would erode slightly some of the comments made regarding application 19/00698/OUT earlier on the agenda.

·         The application needed to be considered as set out in the agenda.

·         Committee could refuse the application if they wished. The applicant could then re-submit a revised scheme.

·         The new access road is proposed to be metalled two carriageway to potentially adoptable standard.

A representative for Merriott Parish Council addressed members and noted the Parish Council supported the application in principle, however, the access would be more acceptable if it was engineered to be more like a farm track and less visible.

The Agent spoke of his disappointment that the application was recommended for refusal when the previous officer dealing with the application had indicated support for the proposal. He noted some other local applications had mentioned the lack of employment opportunities locally. Landscape impact seemed to be the issue, and he commented that the buildings would be more visible than the road. He felt the benefits of the application to the rural community were significant.

Ward member, Councillor Paul Maxwell, commented the principle of employment opportunities was positive and the noted the proposal was on a brownfield site. The issue was the access road through open countryside. He did not support the current proposal, but felt he would be more supportive without the proposed access road.

Two proposals were made, frstly to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation, and secondly a counter proposal to approve the application.

During debate some mixed views were expressed including:

·         National policy suggests the application should be supported.

·         Support view of the Parish Council but concerned about the position of the road.

·         There is existing access to the site without the new road having an impact on the landscape.

·         Agree there will be employment opportunities but the new access road is a concern.

·         Principle of employment seems acceptable.

The ward member queried if the application could be deferred to enable discussions with the applicant about the proposed access. In response, the Chairman suggested a short adjournment so that officers could discuss the options.

On reconvening the meeting, the Chairman permitted the agent to briefly address members again. The agent commented they would be agreeable tp the application being deferred to try and negotiate about the access, but highlighted the application had been ongoing for almost a year and the landscape concerns had only been raised four weeks prior to the meeting.

The two proposals already made were subsequently withdrawn, as both proposers supported the idea to defer the application. It was then formally proposed and seconded to defer the application to enable negotiations with the applicant regarding the access. Members requested that the application be returned to Committee in March 2020.

The Lead Specialist (Planning) confirmed officers could look to bring the application back in March, but advised that if any re-consultation was required then some consultee responses may not be included in the agenda written report, and hence there might be a number of verbal updates at the meeting.

At the conclusion of debate, the proposal to defer the application was carried 11 votes in favour, 1 against and 0 abstentions

(Voting: 11 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)