Council and councillors

Nick Hodgett, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application and gave an executive summary, recommending approval subject to conditions outlined in the report.

Prior to the debate the Committee received deputations from Dan O’Boy who spoke as a member of the public opposing the recommendation, Ken Edward spoke as Chairman of Greetham Parish Council, Neil Osborn spoke as the applicant and Councillor Nick Begy spoke as the Ward Member. The Committee also had the opportunity to ask questions of these speakers.

Members raised concerns over the biodiversity net-gain. One of the conditions set out that the landscaping scheme would be submitted as part of the reserved matters stage and shall be accompanied by a Biodiversity Net Gain matrix to demonstrate that the scheme could achieve at least neutral impact.

Members felt the application failed to provide proper evaluation and understanding of the biodiversity impacts of the calcareous grassland required by the planning consent for the former quarry.

It was confirmed to Members that the removal of invasive species had commenced on the proposed site. The treatment started to remove the invasive weed Piri-Piri Burr but officers could not confirm if it had completely eradicated. It would require ongoing treatments.

A noise assessment was carried out and the conclusion was that if all three proposed applications were approved, the noise emissions for all sites could be controlled. It also concluded that the housing site could stand alone without the warehousing but with the quarry.

The assessment from the highway’s safety point of view, the highways team had assessed the access to the site and took into account all the data that they held, and they concluded that the access arrangement was acceptable.

Members raised concerns of the sustainability of the site as Greetham does not fully meet the criteria for a local service centre with no primary school, no post office and the local shop is closed. To access all those services would mean travel by car. Officers responded by saying with no 5-year housing land supply issue, the harm from the development did not outweigh the benefits of providing housing, subject to the conditions could contribute to the 5-year housing land supply. The NPPF states that only whether the adverse impact significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits should permission be refused.

---o0o---

At 9:27pm the Chair proposed that an extension of 30 minutes be taken, and this was unanimously approved by the Committee.

---o0o---

It was proposed by Councillor Begy and seconded that the application be refused due to the issues around biodiversity, sustainability, and concerns over highway access.

Upon being put to the vote, with 5 votes in favour and 5 against, the motion was lost on the Chair’s casting vote.

The Chair then proposed for the application for approval, this was seconded and upon being put to the vote, with 5 votes in favour and 5 against, the motion was carried on the Chair’s casting vote.

RESOLVED

a)    That planning application 2021/0170/MAO be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined by the Development Manager and agreed by Members within the debate.

b)    The full list of reasons can be found on the planning application page of the Council’s website

https://www.rutland.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building-control/planning/view-planningapplications-and-decisions/