Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

Cllr Charles McGrath

Cllr Sam Charleston – who was substituted Cllr Trevor Carbin

Cllr Rich Rogers

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2024 were presented.

It was;

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

In relation to item 7, PL/2023/08818, 127 East Gomeldon Road, Councillor Andrew Oliver noted that he had been involved in the production of the Idmiston Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan, and confirmed that he would remain impartial and would consider the application with an open mind after having heard the whole debate on the matter.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm Thursday 8 August 2024 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on [Monday 12 August 2024. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

It was;

Resolved:

To note the Appeals report.

Conversion of existing barns to form a single storey two bedroom residential dwelling (Use Class C3) and associated works.

Public Participation

Mr Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Kirsty Exton (Chairman) of Idmiston Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the conversion of existing barns to form a single storey two-bedroom residential dwelling (Use Class C3) and associated works be approved subject to a s111 agreement to secure mitigation for protected sites.

A minor correction to the applicant’s name in the report was noted by the Officer, as the correct spelling was Diffey.

Key details as set out in the report include the principle of development/capability of conversion, visual impact on existing building and surrounding area and the impact upon neighbour amenity. 

A series of site photos were explained along with the existing and proposed floor plans and elevations.

A previous planning application on the site had been refused and was then later refused by the planning inspector at appeal. It was noted however that one of the grounds for refusal at Committee had not been supported by the inspector, who was satisfied that the building was capable of conversion development.

Following the submission of a Landscape Visual Assessment, the landscape impacts of the proposed development on the site surroundings were considered as not significant.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the elevation of the site above the road, which was noted as not significant. 

The difference in the level of landscape harm now in relation to the previously refused application. It was explained that there were no differences, however the Inspector had felt there was harm but not arising from the building itself but from the associated use. If there was a change of use from agricultural to residential, there was an associated outside change also. The site was outside the main line of domestic properties, therefore the harm still existed, but the landscape assessment had taken a broader view and concluded that the proposal for change of use would not amount to a harm. Officers agree any harm would be very localised.

There were no other similar residential dwellings set back behind the ribbon development, and any application for a new build would not meet the criteria, it was only due to the proposal being for a conversion under CP48 that it was an exception to CP2.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above.

The Agent for the application noted the grounds for refusal by the Inspector and the urgent need for new housing due to the housing land supply.

The Idmiston Parish Council representative spoke in objection, noting the unsuitability of the conversion. A comparison was made to a separate site in the area that had received planning permission for conversion of a barn for a disabled living dwelling, which had included a caveat preventing the future sale of the dwelling. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

There were no urgent items