Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Development Manager on various applications for planning permission etc

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos. 1-4, a copy of the Update being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos. 1-3, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List attached as Appendix 3 to these Minutes.

Items 1&2 Hinton Organics Ltd, Charlton Field Lane, Queen Charlton – (1) Variation of Conditions 13 and 16 of planning permission Ref 97/02626/MINW dated 2^nd December 1998 to allow permanent recycling of cardboard waste and increase in truck movements; and (2) increase size of concrete storage area and variation of Condition 13 of planning permission Ref 97/02626/MINW to accept wood waste; and Item 3 Parcel 5319, Charlton Field Lane, Queen Charlton – Variation of Conditions 13, 16 and 19 of planning permission Ref 97/02626/MINW to extend composting operations, increase vehicle movements and permit cardboard and wood recycling (Temporary use of land for 10 years for manufacture of organic green compost as amended by revised drawings received 14^th April 1998 at land formerly Queen Charlton Quarry) – The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendations to refuse permission on the grounds that the applications are for EIA development and should have been accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The information submitted in support of the applications was not considered to constitute an Environmental Statement within the terms of Regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact etc.) Regulations 1999 in particular because it fails to address the risk of pollution of the NVZ, fails to give information on restoration of the site and fails to include a Non-Technical Summary. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact etc.) Regulations 1999, the applications must be refused.

She referred to the Update Report which comprised further representations, corrected a date in the report and attached the Legal Opinion on the issue of an Environmental Statement not being submitted. The Officer responded to queries by the Chair.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the applications which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Sally Davis.

Members asked various questions for clarification to which Officers responded. In particular, Councillor Les Kew enquired how long the applicants might need in order to submit an Environmental Statement which met the requirements of the legislation and whether the Council had received any letters supporting the development. The Case Officer replied that the Council had received letters of support from approximately 16 people, several of whom had written 3 letters (one for each application). In her view, it would not take the applicants long to rectify the Environmental Statement although she was unable to give a timescale for the provision of the outstanding ecological information.

Councillor Bryan Organ noted that the Parish Council had not yet been in a position to make detailed comments. He considered that there were a number of benefits from the recycling operation and supported a deferral for 2 months to give the applicants a final opportunity to submit an Environmental Statement and for the Council to then consult upon the new information. He therefore moved accordingly on all 3 applications. The motions were seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol.

A number of Members spoke in favour of the motion to defer. Councillor Les Kew asked the Case Officer whether 2 months was a reasonable amount of time for an Environmental Statement to be submitted and consulted upon. The Case Officer replied that, in her view, the process could take longer than 2 months and suggested that 3 months might be more realistic. Councillor Kew therefore suggested to the mover and seconder that the motions be amended to a 3 month deferral. This was accepted by the mover and seconder.

Members debated the motions. It was generally accepted that a deferral was the best course of action. The Chair summed up the debate. Councillor Doug Nicol queried whether a Site Visit would be useful for those Members who hadn’t seen the site. The Chair stated that a Pre-Committee Site Visit could be arranged.

The motions to defer as above were put to the vote and were carried, 11 voting in favour and 2 against.

Item 4 The Fir Tree Inn, 140 Frome Road, Radstock – Erection of 2 residential dwellings with associated amenity space and parking – The Case Officer reported on this application and her revised recommendation to Delegate authority to the Development Manager to Permit subject to no new objections being received by 21^st February 2013 and subject to the conditions set out in the Report with the Agenda.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson spoke in favour of the proposal and the various reasons why it should be permitted. She therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew.

Members briefly debated the motion after which it was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.