Agenda item

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

A member of the Committee asked the Planning Officer to clarify that the barn was granted permission in 2018? Would officers have been likely to approve if the application initially proposed the use of a workshop?

The Planning Officer confirmed.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the building was not agricultural and therefore, would not have been recommended for approval if brought to the Committee for the proposed use in 2018.

It was also raised by a member of the Committee the definitive use of  Land Rover Defenders.

 Officers were unsure why  Land Rover Defenders in particular were specifically noted. The Planning Officer advised that a condition could be put before the Committee whereby, the vehicle was not specified.

Were the sound reduction techniques of an approved standard?

The noise impact assessment raised initial concerns when submitted. The sound reduction techniques were in accordance with requirements.

There was a need for storage and disposal. There was no evidence of this in the plans.

The Planning Officer advised that submissions allowed storage for disposal to be taken off site. The officer referred to Condition 6 whereby, a proposed Waste Management System must be approved by local Planning Authority. Condition 11 also stated that ‘no goods should be stacked, stored or deposited illegally’.

It was raised by a member of the Committee concerns relating to water and waste. Was there a proposal on how to address comforts such as washing hands?

The Planning Officer confirmed that it was not referred to specifically. A mobile facility could be conditioned by the Committee.

A member of the Committee referred to the use for vehicles that belong to the premises, was this correct?

The Planning Officer advised that the use was for agricultural repairs and machinery from other sites.

When the noise assessment was completed, was it completed under the assumption that doors would be closed?

The Planning Officer confirmed that the assessment was completed based on the assumption that the doors would be closed.

A member of the Committee referred to the floor plans, how much of the 23m length was proposed to have been taken up by the workshop?

The Planning Officer suggested that 60% of the building would have consisted of the workshop.

How effective would the log book have been, and how often would it have been inspected?

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that it was under the owners’ discretion. The condition could be worded to record a timeframe.

It was clear that the application was outside of the development boundary of the emerging local plan. Was it correct that the application must have significant benefits to the local economy for permission to be granted?

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the application was outside of the settlement boundary. The diversification of the application must be considered.

A member of the Committee asked if the site was unique in its merits.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the application was not unique and the services could be provided elsewhere.

Concerns were raised regarding the lack of plans for exhaust fumes extraction, ramps, or location for scrap materials or an air compressor.

The Planning Officer referred to condition 11 whereby ‘all materials will be kept within the premises’.

There was no mention of air tools within the report. Had the sound assessment taken into account these specific tools? Was there a possibility for air conditioning to be installed?

It was advised that air tools were not specifically assessed. Condition 5 referred to a Ventilation System to support air quality in the premises. It would be possible to re-word the condition.