Agenda item

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development which sought outline planning permission for the development of a site for distribution uses (Use Class B8) including ancillary offices and associated works including vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking and landscaping.  It was noted that the report had been considered and deferred at the previous meeting to allow Officers to push the Agent for a named occupier.  Subsequently the applicant had provided additional information as details in the report. 

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda had been published from Fieldsend Associated on behalf of Tritax and Simons Developments; NSDC Planning Policy; Councillor Mrs L. Dales; and Curry’s Group Limited. 

Councillor D. Armstrong, on behalf of Coddington Parish Council, spoke in accordance with the views of Coddington Parish Council, as contained within the report.  He noted that the name of the tenant was still unknown despite the application being deferred at the previous meeting to allow Officers to acquire the information.

Councillor J. Lee, Local Ward Member for Balderton North & Coddington, spoke against the application on the grounds that it would set a precedent for largescale industrial development to take place adjacent to the small village of Coddington.  He stated that there were more suitable sites in the Newark area for such development.

It was reported that subsequent to the last meeting of the Committee, a meeting had taken place with the applicant, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Planning Officers.  The applicant was asked for the name of the occupier but stated that until planning permission was approved an occupier would not sign any agreement and therefore the information was not available. 

Members considered the application and reiterated their comments from the previous meeting in relation to it being a speculative development in the open countryside with the loss of green field land and the impact that a development of that size would bring to existing traffic congestion. 

The Business Manager advised that prior to submission of the application, the applicant had sought advice from both Highways England and the Highways Department at Nottinghamshire County Council.  It was noted that the application was contrary to the Development Plan but would potentially form part of the first phase of the NewLink Business Park.  It was further noted that the big box sector was a growing business to support the increase in online shopping.  Large scale sites were required to facilitate this, providing onshore storage of goods.  Noting that the East Midlands region was attractive to investors in this type of business, the levelling up funding could provide such development in the southern area of the district. 

Members proceeded to discuss the economic benefits of the current application together with the uncertainty as to whether the dualling of the A46 would proceed.  It was suggested that the development of big box sites would change the landscape of the district and a strategic discussion on the matter should be held at the Local Development Framework Task Group. 

A vote was taken to approve planning permission and was lost with 3 votes for, 9 votes against with 1 abstention.

AGREED      (by 9 votes for, 3 votes against with 1 abstention) that contrary to Officer recommendations, planning permission be refused on the grounds of the application being contrary to strategic employment policies of the adopted Development Plan and it would have a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside.

In accordance with paragraph 12.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendations, a recorded vote was taken.