To receive an implications report from the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at a previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it an * implications report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at a previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the original application that had been approved and the revised application which showed the reorientation and slightly larger site, the bund and the additional planting. He outlined the area from which the silage feedstock would be sourced, the proposed layout of the site, the 2 driers and silage clamps, the planting plan and general photographs were shown taken from the canal and bridges at different times of the year. The two site plans were also identified, the original approved application and the revised scheme. He outlined the Committee’s reasons for refusal and the supporting evidence outlined in the report along with legal advice that had been received.
Answers to questions posed in public question time were provided:
· The site had been visited by officers at least three times and by the Committee twice
· With regard to the gas line, this had been referred to at a previous meeting but had not formed part of the application
· Road issues at Crown Hill were a highway issue
· The overlapping of land to be used as part of the Eastern Urban Extension; this was highlighted within the report
· The fact that the application was retrospective, Members/Officers would not advocate a retrospective application but there was an opportunity for the applicant to seek to regularise the scheme
· Planting issues – yes it would take time to screen the application site, possibly multiple years
· How could the original plan be implemented and the condition monitored, the Enforcement Team would monitor any conditions alongside the Environment Agency with regard to permitting aspects
· The appeal decision for Menchine Farm, Members and officers were aware of the Menchine appeal which was dismissed on the impact on the local amenity and transport issues
· With regard to resources to defend an appeal, the Local Planning Authority would put the necessary resources into defending any reasons for refusal.
The Legal Services Manager explained the information received from Counsel and requested that Members focus on the difference between the two schemes, if the application was to be refused it would be necessary to gain expert advice.
Consideration was given to:
· Whether the applicant was continuing work at his own risk; the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the applicant was not complying with the previous application and had been advised as such, works had taken place and Members needed to look at the application on its merits
· The gas pipe line between Red Linhay and Willand and because this had not been progressed, the plans had had to be changed
· The impact of the application on the canal and the local area
· The legal advice received
· The need for expert advice on the proposed reasons for refusal
· The need to write again to the applicant advising that they were working on the site at their own risk.
RESOLVED that
a) The application be deferred to seek expert advice on all four of the reasons proposed for refusal;
b) The Head of Planning and Regeneration be requested to write a further letter to the applicant informing them that they were proceeding at their own risk.
(Proposed by Cllr J M Downes and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs K I Busch, D J Knowles, R F Radford and R L Stanley declared personal interests as applicant/objectors were known to them;
(ii) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her abstention from voting be recorded;
(iii) *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
Supporting documents: