Issue - meetings

Following consideration of legal advice (at Agenda Item 6) to determine the above application.  Please see report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed).

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Service Delivery, having regard to the legal advice provided at Agenda Item 6.  It was noted that the report and Members’ Update considered by the District Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 July 2020 were attached as Appendices 1 and 2.

Following some discussion Councillor K M H Lagan proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation.  In presenting his proposal Councillor Lagan raised a number of points of concern, some of which he related specifically to the suggested conditions set out in the Officers’ report.  This proposal was duly seconded.

A lengthy debate ensued, and a number of other Members raised further concerns.  At this point and in light of the motion for refusal the Committee discussed reasons for refusal.

In response to a question regarding deferring the decision pending expert advice, the Lead Specialist Place advised hat Members could defer a planning application to seek more information, although what that information was would need to be detailed.  The Officer reminded the Committee that this application had already been granted an extension of time by the applicant which ended today, and Members should legally make a decision today.  Should Members not make a decision then the applicant could make an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of the application.

After further discussion, Councillor Lagan clarified his earlier proposal advising that the reasons for refusal should relate to noise and disturbance on ecology matters, historical environment relating to archaeology and heritage assets and that the Council based on the legal advice received should seek and appoint technical experts in these areas to ensure every area was covered. 

In response to a question regarding the procedure Members were advised that they needed to consider the first motion which had been seconded, although this could be amended, prior to considering any other proposals.

The Specialist – Development Management provided the Committee with further information in response to concerns raised which included:

·                 The Adopted LDP and NPPF were taken into consideration by Officers along with the temporary nature of the works and mitigating actions proposed to minimise concern;

·                 Conditions were proposed to mitigate concerns regarding contamination, dust, ecology etc.

·                 The fencing proposed around the compound area was for security;

·                 The noise assessment had not found that the noise would be harmful to those in the surrounding area;

·                 Following consultation with Environmental Health and other consultees it was felt that as the hours of operation proposed were not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1154