Agenda item

The Chair & Vice Chair of the Committee had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and asked members to note an amendment to the report which referred to the location of the site as Little Hayfield in paragraph 9, 53 and 54 rather than Little Hucklow which was the correct location. There was also an amendment to paragraph 15 of the report which stated that a previous application for an agricultural building on the site had been refused when it had been approved.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant had lowered the building since the initial submission but that no landscape scheme had been received from the agent. Although very little detail had been received with the application the main cause for concern was the impact of the building on the open countryside and the Conservation Area nearby.  Officers had identified an alternative site on the other side of the road which would be much less visible and more easily screened but the applicant had requested to proceed with the application put before Members.

The following made representations to the committee under the Public Participation at Meetings scheme:

·         Jo Harrison – Agent – statement read out by Democratic & Legal Support Team Officer.

The recommendation to refuse the application was moved and seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

The application was REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The siting of the proposed building will pose substantial harm to the open landscape character and the wider conservation area setting which is contrary to policies L1 and DMC5.

2.    Insufficient information has been submitted regarding the established mature tree situated north of the agricultural buildings. This information is required by policy DMC13 to assess the potential for harm and extent of tree protection required.