Agenda item

Ms Slack left the room for the duration of this item as she had declared a prejudicial interest in the application.

The report was introduced by the Planning Officer who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Jo Harrison, agent – statement read out by Democratic Services

In response to questions from Members, Officers raised the following points:

·         The need to isolate animals is understood but this could occur elsewhere in a place that would not have such an impact on the landscape.

·         The application had included little detail on landscaping and what would be included here would take time to grow and take effect.

·         The location is not located in a dip in the landscape and is more or less level with the road.

·         There would be no possibility to dig the building into the ground to make it less visible.

Members raised the point that a building did previously exist at the site, but others pointed out that the proposed building is nearly three times the size and with a different purpose to the original.

Members were sympathetic towards the agricultural need, but they were divided in their opinions of whether this application was the appropriate response to such need. Some Members pointed out that the proposed building was out of character with the local area, had too big a visual impact on the historic landscape, and that there were better ways to address the agricultural need for isolating farm animals.

A motion to move the recommendations to refuse the application for the reasons given in the report was proposed, seconded and voted on: there being an equality of votes, the chair exercised his second (casting) vote in favour of the motion.