Portal framed building (94.0m x 40.0m x 8.8m) with ancillary office accommodation and service yard with operational and visitor parking including cycle and motor cycle parking
Applicant: Mr Simon Mander, Avanti Conveyors Limited
A site visit had been undertaken on 2 July 2021.
Members viewed plans and photographs of the site.
The Committee were addressed by Richard Houghton (in objection to the application) and Simon Mander (applicant).
1. That planning permission be approved, for the following reasons:
The Committee has reached an overall balanced judgement that the economic and other public benefits of the proposal outweigh the actual or potential harm to biodiversity, heritage and landscape identified by specialist officers and set out in the report.
The key factors taken into account by the Committee are set out below:
Economic and other public benefits
· Retention and expansion of local and off-site employment and training opportunities in a modern and expanding business with international dimensions and the expansion of opportunities in the locally-based supply chain for that business
· The Council’s active support for a long-established and developing locally-based and highly regarded business will enhance the reputation of High Peak as a good location for developing businesses providing other local work opportunities
· Alternative appropriate buildings or sites for the development are not available, if the application is refused the business would be likely to be developed outside High Peak
· The Council has approved many housing sites and must also provide jobs for these residents
Biodiversity, heritage and landscape issues
· Heritage: specialist officers have raised specific negative issues in relation to particular characteristics of the context in which the proposed development would be located. Theses negative aspects are classified as ‘less than substantial’ which requires a balanced judgement or judgements to be made about their significance
· Biodiversity: the Council could use its influence to find common ground between the applicant and consultees and to achieve suitable mitigation by way of conditions(s)
· Landscape and heritage: it is a matter of regret that the application falls outside the development boundary in the local plan. However, a major positive characteristic of the area as a whole is a very mixed background and history and the positive use that has been made of that history and heritage (eg tourism, HSE, industrial estate etc.) The views from Solomon’s Temple/Grin Tower are just as much about local interest and variety as natural beauty and heritage. It is in this spirit that the Committee has assessed its judgement on the relative lesser weight to accord to the landscape and heritage issues by comparison with the economic and other public benefits set out above.
2. That the detailed conditions to be attached to the approval, in particular those relating to harm/potential harm to biodiversity, heritage and landscape be delegated to the Head of Development Services in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee. Members also requested that a suitable number of electric vehicle charging points be provided in the car parking area;
3. That, in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.