Agenda item

Development of a cafe, workshop and a new vehicular access and road (to replace the existing vehicular access).

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the proposed elevations and floor plans were provided as well as details of the proposed site plan and constraints. Members were informed that the café was to be ancillary which would have been run by the applicant and the workshop was speculative development. Parking provision was also detailed, highlighting that two disabled parking spaces were proposed to be allocated for the café and two proposed for the workshop. The Case Officer referred to the tree protection plan which had identified those to be removed and those to be retained. Details of the visibility splays and existing site entrance were provided. The key planning considerations were considered to be acceptable. The proposal was for an employment site and had been supported by policy. If approved, it would have provided full time equivalent jobs. However, it was not considered to be appropriate in the countryside, nor was there an overriding need for the business within the proposed location. Therefore, the principle of the development was not acceptable. There were no impacts on neighbouring properties, and it was well screened from non-designated assets to the south. Highways were satisfied with the proposal, subject to conditions. The proposed ancillary café would have supported the nursery business and provided further employment opportunities at the site, whilst also providing a community hub for the village. In contrary, the officer’s recommendation was to refuse.

Public Participation

Mr Hunt addressed the committee and explained that the garden centre had grown, offering customers full range of garden products and employed 70 full time and part time staff. However, it needed to grow further in order to thrive and be on par with completion. The applicant loved what he did however it was a harsh environment to thrive, let alone grow further.  He discussed the need for small, traditional businesses and stated that it was a vocal point for the area. He was happy to accept conditions which would have helped to secure their future. Mr Hunt also explained that additional planting would have been carried out if approved.

Cllr Hurst addressed the committee and spoke in support. She stated the need for a community facility and supported the economic development of the area. Other similar businesses have café areas; therefore, this proposal was worthy of approval. It was a well screened site and would have been beautified with planting in its environment. Cllr Hurst felt that it was in the public interest and the benefits outweighed the harm.

The Local Ward member spoke in support and praised the applicant. She expressed that there was currently no meeting place for residents and the proposal offered further employment opportunities. There were numerous petitions to support and considered it to be important to allow for businesses to have a level playing field. There were no highways concerns nor where their negative amenity issues. The scale and design were appropriate, and it accorded with sections 4, 7, 11,20, 23,24 and 25 of local plan. Cllr Pothecary hoped the committee would support a growing business.

Members questions and comments

• Members felt that it was an interesting application, and it was important to allow business growth.
• It would have been ancillary to the business.
• It was noted that there was a lot of enthusiastic support for the proposal which had been supported by employment policies.
• Good use of a brown field site.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to overturn the officer’s recommendation and GRANT planning permission, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr Sherry Jespersen.

Decision: To overturn the officer’s recommendation and grant permission and delegate to the head of planning for the following reasons:

• The development would have provided local employment, is a brownfield site, and would support the local business by creating footfall.