Agenda item

Land east of Wolds Farm, Landyke Lane, Scalford

Reference:	20/01107/FUL
Location:	Land East of Wolds Farm, Landyke Lane, Scalford
Proposal:	Erection of business unit including office and welfare space associated access, car parking, drainage and landscaping

 

(Councillors Holmes and Steadman here left the meeting and took no part in the debate nor voted on this application.)

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the application had returned following its deferral at the last meeting. As requested the economic development aspect, traffic movements, parking had been reviewed and the applicant had submitted a statement about amenity and lighting. There was one change in the application relating to perspective on how the car parking could be reconfigured should consent be forthcoming. Further information had been supplied to Members since the briefing and the recommendation remained for approval with the condition as to parking arrangements and Members would need to consider also how this would be discharged eg. Member/Officer group.

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

 

·                Max Hobill, Neighbour

Mr Hobill responded to Member questions as follows:

·         The other businesses that he had contacted were willing to speak with the applicant and the cost of industrial land was £250k per acre and this was £20k per acre

 

·                Stephen Mair, Agent, Andrew Grainger and Co Limited

Mr Mair responded to Member questions as follows:

·         He had provided information to the Planning Officer following the last Committee meeting

·         He had not spoken with the Economic Development Officer

·         Notice had been served on the applicant at their current premises in November 2019 and they should have left in November 2020 and since then the applicant had been paying compensation to the landlord. The landlord had agreed to continue until Spring 2022 to allow the applicant the time to move on

·         They had received a list of approximately 10 properties  from the Planning Officer last year and following assessment, for various reasons the sites were found to not be appropriate. He referred to Policy EC2 which allowed for a new business proposal to save jobs and retain employment that the Borough struggled to attract. This was not a new business but was about safeguarding existing jobs in a  rural location

·         This assessment was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020 and was included in the planning and design statement. They were not in a position to assess other options whilst the application was under consideration

·         He explained that the business was rural based on a rural site and the application included significant wildlife practice elements, tree planting etc which would not be achieved if the site was in an industrial location on the edge of town or elsewhere.

·         He advised that several sites were assessed and there was a willingness to engage with Planning Officers and they were supportive of this proposal/location from the outset and there had been a focus on policy EC2 to safeguard jobs

·         There were 63 employees, 29 lived in the Borough and others elsewhere

·         With regard to car parking, many of the employees  came to site on a Monday and returned on a Friday and due to the nature of the business not all staff needed to park 5 days a week or be on site 

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery commented that

 

·         Housing policy comments had no bearing on the application

·         The financial position of the applicant was not relevant

·         Policy EC2 was the principal policy and was supportive of the proposal

·         Members needed to consider the rural location as well as details around the landscape and impact on neighbouring properties as criteria of this policy

·         He was concerned about the alternative sites debate as the developer did not need to prove that this site was the only one suitable

·         The applicant would have to comply with any conditions and the Council’s role was enforcement not to monitor and they would respond to reports of non-compliance

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·           Such businesses were welcomed with a significant workforce and it was a question of balance of how other factors affected the proposal

·           It was felt that industrial sites should be discounted before considering a greenfield site

·           There were neighbour objections to be considered

·           There was concern that the Economic Development Officer had not been consulted nor provided any background to other prospective sites

·           This application felt rushed as did the new car parking layout and would have benefited from a more detailed submission

·           There were other sites on the market that could accommodate this business

·           The desire to retain the jobs should not be to the detriment of the environment and other people

·           It was felt not to meet EC2 and SS3 although it was pointed out SS3 was a housing policy which did not apply in this case

·           There was concern that to approve could set a precedent for businesses like this in the rural areas

·           There was concern as to the character of the site and accessibility as there was the need to work at night at times and the restrictions Members may wish to impose could restrict the workings of the business

·           Members were torn to refuse the application due to the impact on an existing business and the associated jobs

 

Councillor Browne proposed that the application be refused due to the impact on the landscape, neighbouring properties and being of poor design and in conflict with policies D1 and EC2 of the Local Plan. Councillor Bindloss seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 20/01107/FUL be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer

recommendation, due to the impact on the landscape, neighbouring properties and being of poor design and in conflict with policies D1 and EC2 of the Local Plan.

 

(6 for, 2 abstentions)

 

(Councillors Holmes and Steadman here re-joined the meeting.)