Councillor D. Whyte substituted for councillor Williams, Councillor Furey substituted for Councillor Snow, and Councillor Cressey substituted for Councillor Mann.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 November 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable and non-registrable interests in items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a two storey building comprising of 3 warehouses for storage & distribution (B8) with ancillary first floor offices and associated parking and ancillary service yard (amended plans received 18.11.24 amending the red line of the application to include the wider site of Bellbourne Nursery and the creation of an Ecological Enhancement Area and area for Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDs) to the north)

Officers drew the Committee’s attention to the addendum that advised that following the publication of the 2024 NPPF on 12 December 2024 the application would need to accord with the advice contained within the framework.

The updated version of the NPPF Chapter 13 Green Belt, which needed to be given significant weight in the decision-making process, did not alter officers’ planning balance or materially change the recommendation.

The Committee referenced the type of use of the proposed scheme, and officers acknowledged that residential use on the site would have less impact than the proposed existing B8 use, however there was nothing within the Council’s policies or in legislation that would enable the Council to compel the applicant to submit a residential use application.  Furthermore, the government had extended the amount of floorspace that could be converted under the prior approval process since the last applications were determined which needed to be taken account of when assessing the position around the fallback situation of a site.

Whilst Committee noted that there was limited height difference between the proposed warehouse and Hobbs’s Farm, which was further offset by landscaping and proposed new ecological open area, there was still concern around the mass and bulk of the building, and by its very nature it was felt that it was more prominent than existing buildings on the site.

A Committee member asked that an additional condition was imposed to ensure that no windows were introduced into the side wall on the western end of the building at any time in future.  The condition was agreed by the Committee.

A Committee member asked for clarification on how substantial harm could be outweighed by significant benefits. Officers advised that the decision-making process had to give substantial weight to any level of harm in the Green Belt but that does not mean that there is substantial harm. Substantial harm and substantial weight are different concepts. As set out in the officer’s report there was harm by definition and a moderate harm to openness and this was attributed substantial weight, however it was considered that the significant benefits as stated in the officer report clearly outweighed this harm. The committee were also advised that the balancing of benefits to harms did not have to be a mathematical exercise but was a case of planning judgement.

Officers confirmed that HGV movements would be limited to operating hours of the site and also ancillary to the warehouses, and this would be woven into the legal agreement and included as an additional planning obligation, whilst planting along the acoustic fence would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.