Decision details

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

In introducing the report the Officer pointed out an error in Condition 6 which should also include the painting of the north elevation of the building.

The photo montage used as part of the Officer presentation had been supplied by the applicant and did not include the raised bunding which had subsequently been discussed with officers.

There had been a previous application on 2012 for two new buildings which had been refused, appealed and the Authority’s decision to refuse had been upheld by the inspector.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

• Mrs Barbara Wardley, Objector
• Jan Symmington, Objector

It was noted that the present building already had an impact on the landscape and all the reasons specified by the Planning Inspector when refusing the previous application still stand even though this is now only one building.  The large scale landscaping needed to reduce the impact of the buildings and the storage of large amounts of waste products from the cattle kept in the sheds could have an environmental impact on the yard and surrounding land.  No consultation has taken place with the water company to check on the impact of the earth works on the water table.

A motion for refusal contrary to the officer recommendation based on the points noted in the Planning Inspector’s report at point 14, 17, 18, 26 and 29 and including the last sentence of point 25 ‘Overall it seems to me that the benefits outlined include a small public benefit.  However, it is not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.’ was moved and seconded, put to the vote and carried.