Agenda item
Plans List - Application for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee
Minutes:
The Committee considered
· A report by the Group Manager – Development Management on an application for variation of a planning permission at Filer’s Coaches, Wick Lane, Stanton Wick
· Oral statements by members of the public etc., the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes
RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the application be determined as set out in the Decision List attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes
Filer’s Coaches, Wick Lane, Stanton Wick – Variation of Condition 4 of application WC6174/E to increase number of coaches kept on site from 12 to 20 (Continued use of land as a coach depot on land at Pensford Colliery, Pensford) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation that permission be refused. He referred to the recent planning history of the site and advised that the references in the report to Policy GB1 of the Local Plan should instead read Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy.
The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor, Jeremy Sparks, supporting the application.
Councillor Dave Laming drew attention to the type of coach using the depot and whether the situation would be different if it was a double decker. The Case Officer responded that it could be any type of coach and that there was potential for that now or in the future. The fallback position was for 12 coaches.
Councillor Les Kew referred to the previous industrial use of the site and the local area and gave reasons why he supported the proposal. He referred to the NPPF and stated that, in his view, the expanded operation should be located on this site in the Green Belt. The business served the local community and provided local employment. If it were situated elsewhere, then resources would be wasted travelling from other locations. He did not accept that there were suitable alternative sites and pointed out that employees would have to travel to any new site which would increase traffic on the roads. This was an increase of an already permitted use; the access road was not narrow, there was no highway objection. In summary, he felt that this was appropriate development in the Green Belt which did not harm the openness of the Green Belt and he was also satisfied that the development would not encroach into the countryside. He therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that Officers be delegated to grant permission subject to appropriate conditions. These would include coaches being kept in designated areas and disused coaches not being retained on site. The motion was seconded by Councillor Dave Laming.
Members debated the motion. Councillor Malcolm Lees queried whether a boundary fence should be erected around the red line of the site to prevent encroachment onto the adjoining land. The Case Officer responded that this could be done and because it was not easy to see where the boundary was and there was a danger of coaches accidentally parking on the adjoining land. The mover and seconder agreed that this condition be included. There was further discussion about the proposal and the issue was raised as to whether access to the adjoining land would be prevented by the erection of a fence. It was stated that an appropriate gate could be included in the boundary fence. The Team Manager – Development Management clarified the reasons for granting permission, namely, that this was considered to be that this was part of the local transport infrastructure which based on the information submitted had demonstrated a requirement for a Green Belt location, the openness of the Green Belt would be maintained, there would be no detrimental effect on residential amenity and there was an existing permission for parking of coaches on the site. There would be conditions by the Highways Officer to be included as set out in the report in addition to a condition ensuring that no disused vehicles were stored at the site.
The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.
Supporting documents:
-
PlansList, item 147.
PDF 228 KB
-
Appendix1SpeakersList, item 147.
PDF 40 KB
-
Appendix2DecisionList, item 147.
PDF 17 KB