Council and democracy

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 10 January 2019.

The following amendments were requested:

·         Councillor Shinnick to be added to the list of ‘apologies’; and

·         Councillor Holloway to be noted as a substitute for Councillor Shinnick.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 10 January 2019 were approved as a correct record subject to the amendments to be made.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Chair congratulated the Planning Department on winning the award for the Local Authority Planning Team of the Year category at the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Councillor Rice declared a non-pecuniary interest on both items as he had received email correspondence from the involved parties.

Members had received an email correspondence from the Corporate Director of Place on application 18/00540/FUL which reminded the Committee that the previous covenants discussed at the last committee meeting on 10 January 2019 were immaterial. However questions around the history of the application could still be asked.

The Committee had also received an email from the applicant for application 18/01760/HHA, The Lodge.

Leigh Nicholson, Strategic Lead of Development Services, provided a brief outline of the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Committee noted the report.

Chris Purvis, the Principal Planner, presented the application and informed the Committee that the application had been deferred from the last committee meeting on 10 January 2019 to allow for a petition to be considered. An additional planning obligation, also utilising any other relevant powers, was added in seeking to safeguard the remaining public car park area outside the site but within land owned by the applicant and the access to and from the car park(the blue line indicated on the map).

The Chair opened the item to the Committee for questions.

(Councillor Sue Shinnick was unable to participate or vote on the planning application as she had not been present at the initial planning application hearing).

Steve Taylor, Campaign to Protect Rural England Representative, questioned if the retention of the public car parks would be retained. The Principal Planner confirmed this would be the case as the car park in the blue line would be retained as a planning obligation. Following up, Steve Taylor asked what the process would be if obligations were to change in the future. The Principal Planner answered that a Deed of Modification would be needed to change the planning obligations which would then go through a separate planning process.

In regards to the extra car park spaces, Steve Taylor asked if there was a possibility for adding on a deck below ground. Responding that the car park was at its limit, the Principal Planner went on to say that this had been discussed with the applicant to ensure that there would be enough parking spaces to meet the draft parking standards. Steve Taylor sought clarification on whether a conversation had taken place regarding extending a deck below ground to which the Principal Planner replied that the conversation had not taken place.

Referring to page 33, paragraph 4.12, Councillor Rice queried whether the 35% of affordable units would equate to 17 affordable units. The Principal Planner confirmed that there would be 16 affordable units from the housing scheme. Councillor Rice asked the Officer to check the calculations as he had calculated 17.

Continuing on with questions, Councillor Lawrence questioned whether there would be charging points for electric cars. The Principal Planner answered that the charging points were not within the planning applications but could be considered through a planning condition or through the travel plan. Councillor Lawrence sought confirmation on the number of disabled parking spaces to which the Principal Planner confirmed that there were two.

Going back to the affordable units from the housing scheme, Councillor Rice said that his calculation was 16.45 and he asked if this number would be rounded up to 17 or rounded down to 16. Andrew Millard, Assistant Director of Planning, Transportation and Public Protection, answered that the figure would be rounded down to 16 which was confirmed by the Principal Planner.

Referring to the initial agreement of the car park when it was sold in 2012 and understanding that it was now void; the Chair asked why it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Tom Scriven, the Principal Planner advised that the planning application sought permission to develop a single storey side and rear extension. Two planning applications of a similar form had been sought previously and both had been rejected due to the size of the extensions. This application showed a reduction in the size of the proposed designs.  However, the extension would still exceed the two reasonably sized rooms test for a proportionate extension in the Green Belt as set out in Policy PMD6 of the Core Strategy.  As a result the proposal was considered to represent a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling which would constitute a disproportionate addition in the Green Belt, by definition harmful to openness.

The Chair opened the item up to the Committee for questions to which there were none. The item was opened up for debate.

Noting the previous two rejected applications, Councillor Rice said the applicant was clearly trying to be accommodating and only sought a small extension that would not be seen by the next door neighbour. He thought the applicant was being reasonable as he sought a small diner and utility room. Referring to the planning training provided prior to the Committee meeting, Councillor Rice said he would be in favour of the application as the extensions requested would not be disproportionate to the original building.

Agreeing with Councillor Rice, Councillor Lawrence added that the extension was small which would not affect the Green Belt and would keep to the character of the house design. She felt the personal reasons given by the applicant via email would constitute very special circumstances as the applicant’s elderly mother would be moving in so she would not be placed in a care home. The applicant’s family would be able to live in harmony with his elderly mother and his children and the extension would not be seen. With all the reasons added up together, Councillor Lawrence felt the Committee should be fair. 

Steve Taylor said that the biggest issue of the application was the fact it would extend onto a part of the Green Belt. Policy is quite clearly against developing on the Green Belt. Therefore to allow for this application to develop on the Green Belt would invite issues from concerned parties and other future planning applications within the Green Belt. Permitted development rights were removed when planning permission was granted for the dwelling and previous applications for the extensions had been rejected and should not be overridden.

Sympathising with the applicant, the Chair agreed the application had to be considered in planning terms and whilst the reasons given and the requested extension did not seem unreasonable, the laws of planning still applied. He agreed with Steve Taylor that there needed to be consistency on the approval and rejection of planning applications.

Referring to the planning training prior to the Committee meeting, Councillor Rice said he had been advised to treat each planning application on its own terms and therefore it would not set a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.