Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Horace Prickett, substituted at the meeting by Cllr Philip Whitehead; Cllr Jonathon Seed, substituted at the meeting by Cllr Jerry Wickham;  and from Cllr Pip Ridout.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2015 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2015.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman gave details of the exits to be used in the event of an emergency.

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

Cllr Ernie Clark declared, in relation to item 6b - 15/11119/FUL , that he chaired the parish council planning meeting where the matter was discussed, but that he abstained from the vote and confirmed that he would consider it with an open mind.

Cllr Philip Whitehead declared, in relation to item 6b - 15/11119/FUL , that although he was the Cabinet Member for Highways, and that there was an car parking issue to be determined in the Hilperton area, he did not think this would prevent him from considering the application with an open mind.

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 in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on Wednesday 27 January 2016. 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.

No questions had been received from councillors or members of the public.

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

The deferred item from the 16 December 2016 meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer, Jonathon James, outlined the report that recommended that the application be approved with conditions. It was noted that the Committee had previously received a presentation at the previous committee meeting, and that the members of the Committee had had the opportunity to visit the site following a deferral.

Peter Auburn, Alexander Venables and Elsa Joyce spoke in objection to the application. Dermot Tully, the applicant, and Peter Grist, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Trevor Carbin spoke as the local member.

Issues discussed in the course of the presentation and debate included: the location of the site and its relationship with neighbouring properties; the orientation of the properties and gardens; the footprint of the existing property in relation to the proposals; the impact of the application on the amount of natural light received by neighbouring properties; the concerns of the neighbours, particularly with regard to privacy; the size and scale of the proposals in relation to the existing and neighbouring buildings; the topography of the site; the size, location and glazing of the windows in the proposal; the materials proposed to be used; how the proposal accords with other extended properties nearby; and the potential impact of the proposals on the amenity of  neighbours.

Cllr Trevor Carbin moved that the application be refused as, by reason of the bulk, size and height of the extension, the proposal was contrary to core policy 57.

There being no seconder to this proposal, the proposal was not successful.

In response to a question from Cllr Clark, it was clarified that the proposed windows to be formed in the rear elevation would have Juliette balconies that would not extend out from the exterior wall.

In response to a question from Cllr Davis, the planning officer advised that condition 4 should remain and that a condition removing more extensive permitted development rights to restrict further extensions and additions to the property could be included.

Cllr Andrew Davis, subsequently seconded by Cllr Tony Knight, proposed that permission should be granted subject to the inclusion of an additional condition removing permitted development rights for any further extensions or additions.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

Resolved

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1      The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON:   To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2      No development shall commence on site until the exact details and samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Development Control Team Leader, Kenny Green, outlined the report that recommended that the application be refused. The Senior Highways Engineer, Roger Witt, was invited to outline his views that had informed the recommendation.

In response to a question from Cllr MacDonald, officers confirmed that the paved hardstanding had a drain installed at the site frontage which was considered sufficient to trap surface water run-off from entering the public highway.

Heidi Hart, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Ernie Clark spoke as the local member.

Issues highlighted in the course of the presentation and discussion included: the retrospective nature of the application; the restricted visibility of the access especially with respect to oncoming traffic from a northern direction; and the potential highway and pedestrian conflicts; consideration as also given to the provision of parking within the vicinity; the location of the development in relation to the host dwelling and its immediate surroundings; due regard was also given to number of a number of referenced similar accesses with sub-standard visibility locally; consideration was also given to the impact of vehicles parked on the road; and the number of recorded accidents (with injuries recorded) in the area; due regard was also given to the recent opening up of the Hilperton Relief Road and consequential re-classification of Church Street.  Due consideration was also given to Church Street experiencing a reduced volume of traffic. Officers and Members also discussed the potential merits of having a mirror installed to aid visibility.  On this point, officers recommended that members did not seek to condition any approval requesting the installation of a mirror as it would be placed on third party lane; and therefore beyond the scope of a planning condition.

In response to a statement made by the senior highways officer, Members were keen to obtain some legal advice on whether the Council could be placed at risk of legal action should the application be approved and following an accident where the sub-standard access was found to be the cause.  The Committee was adjourned to seek advice from legal officers.

Following a short adjournment, the Senior Democratic Services Officer, Will Oulton, informed the Committee that Legal Services were unable to provide a definitive opinion, and that it would be for the Committee to decide if they felt they had sufficient information to reach a decision.

Cllr Jerry Wickham, subsequently seconded by Cllr Roy While, proposed that further consideration of the application be deferred to allow for definitive legal advice to be sought.

Having been put the vote, the motion was not carried.

Cllr Ernie Clark moved, subsequently seconded by Cllr Magnus MacDonald that the application be permitted subject to the following condition.

1.          The development hereby permitted shall be maintained in accordance with the following approved plans: location plan, site plan 1, site plan 2a and site plan 2b received 12 November 2015.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning

Cllr Clark, in presenting his proposal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Senior planning officer to update on the current status of planning decision appeals

The Development Control Team Leader, Kenny Green, outlined a proposed new approach to inform and update members regarding appeals which would consist of all four area planning committees receiving monthly updates tabulating all scheduled upcoming appeal inquiries and hearings; all live appeals currently in the system and all determined appeals.  The Committee was informed that the data would be generated by the area technical support manager prior to each committee and would be sent to the democratic services team to include within each committee agenda; and for it to be an item for discussion with the chair at the pre-committee briefing.

The Chair stated that he considered the outlined new approach would be an improvement, and that he and other Councillors could request (prior to the committee meeting taking place) further details for specific appeals to be included by the lead planning officer presiding at each committee within their verbal update.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

Resolved

To note the update.

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