Agenda item

Hybrid planning application to provide an Agricultural-Hub comprising: Area 1: Full Planning Permission for the erection of workshop & storage & distribution uses with ancillary offices, shop & showroom, (sui generis), creation of access and associated works (Phase 1); Area 2: Outline Application for the erection of buildings 1, 2 & 3 for agri-business uses falling under Use Classes Class E (a) retail, Class E (e) medical services, Class E (g) Business, B2 workshop & B8 storage & distribution with appearance & scale to be reserved matters (Phases 2 & 3). Report by the Senior Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (circulated previously) in relation to planning application 74775.

Graham Lamb (Chair of Rackenford Parish Council), David Morgans (objector), Susanna Coffin (objector), Ian Lucas (objector), Peter Grugeon (objector) and Andy Pryce (applicant) addressed the Committee.

In response to questions raised by Members, the Senior Planning Officer (DB) advised the following:

·       As part of informal discussions post last planning committeethe Highways Authority had suggested that the hedgerow be removed to improve visibility of the buildings to make people aware of activity and a potential junction being present.  The Council as the Local Planning Authority had declined this as a suggestion as the preference was to retain landscaping and ecology benefits .  The landscaping scheme had not changed.

·       An image of the junction was shown to the Committee following a request by a Member.

·       Planning Policy had not provided a consultation response.  Planning Policy had been involved in the pre-application stage.  Planning Policy had advised that it was a balanced decision and therefore would not be providing a consultation response.

In response to questions raised by Members, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       An officer from the Highways Authority had been invited to attend the meeting, but was unable to attend due to other priorities.

·       The Highways Authority was a technical consultee and had been consulted on the application on a number of occasions. The Highways Authority considered that there was no severe impact in accordance with paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would not be able to support the refusal of the application. The Highways Authority had not requested improvements to the application and the applicant had offered a number of additional improvements to be made to the scheme.

·       There was no policy in place to protect the green corridor along the North Devon Link Road corridor however the visual impact needed to be considered.  There were a number of other commercial units situated along the A361 North Devon Link Road, such as Pathfields and near to Barnstaple.  If the application was refused on this basis, the Planning Inspector would review the whole A361.

·       Following the Committee meeting in October 2022, the sequential test approach had been extended to include Tiverton. It also included South Molton and Witheridge. The sequential test was a snap shot at the current time of what was available and suitable which met the needs of the applicant.  Following this test, there was no other suitable location for this development.

·       The Highways Authority had not requested the applicant to undertake a traffic survey.  The applicant had made some improvements to the scheme.  There was no basis for the applicant to be required to undertake such a survey as the Highways Authority had not requested it.

·       The Council was sent a lot of data in relation to the highways and accidents, however the Highways Officer was not present to confirm whether the Highways Authority had taken this into account.

·       Although no consultation response had been received from the Planning Policy team, the report included references and set out the appropriate planning policies.

·       The National Planning Policy Framework was clear in that more rural locations could be considered if an urban location could not be secured.

·       It was disappointed that a Highways Officer was not present at the meeting to provide an explanation in relation to the vehicle accident and traffic movements data and that it was important that they were present to confirm that their evidence was their response dated 21 September 2022 as detailed in the report.  She would speak with their manager to ensure that there was a presence at the next meeting of the Committee.

·       If the application was approved permitted development rights would be removed.

·       The height of the hedgerow can be conditioned if there was an approval.

Councillor Yabsley (in his capacity as Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

RESOLVED (unanimous) that the application be deferred for one cycle due to the lack of substantive evidence and technical reporting provided by the Highways Authority particularly in relation to the Stonelands Cross junction and as a result of hearing conflicting evidence from the public and Rackenford Parish Council and that the following be requested for the next meeting:

(a)  Consultation response from the Planning Policy team;

(b)  Highways Authority Officer to be present at the next meeting of the Committee to provide statistics on traffic movements along the A361;

(c)  Further amendments being sought regarding the hedgerow.