Agenda item

The report was introduced by the Planning Officer who asked Members to note that the identification of two possible alternative sites should not impact on the decision of the application before them.

The application had been deferred from the previous meeting of the Planning Committee to allow for clearer and better information to be supplied.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Rebecca Hilton - Agent 

Members expressed concerns regarding the position and size of the proposed building and the impact on the landscape of a building of such scale.

The motion to refuse the application in line with the Officer recommendation  was moved.

Officers confirmed that a scheme of tree planting had been proposed but the effectiveness of the trees on reducing the views from the surrounding landscape was uncertain and the trees would likely take 10 – 20 years to have a significant impact.   Members also raised the issue of increasing amounts of tree disease which could impact on the planting and reduce any screening levels.

The motion to refuse the application in line with the Officer recommendation  was seconded put to the vote and carried.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Prior Approval be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The siting, design, and external appearance of the development would result in significant harm to the character of the landscape, by virtue of the building’s isolated and prominent position within open countryside and in a largely unsettled landscape, contrary to policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, L1, DMC1, DMC3, and DME1 of the Authority’s Local Plan, as well as to paragraph 176 of the NPPF.