Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Jose Green, who was substituted by Cllr Tony Deane

·       Cllr John Smale who was substituted by Cllr Robert Yuill

·       Cllr Ian McLennan

·       Cllr Sven Hocking

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 28 June 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 June 2018 were presented.

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.

The following declarations of interest were made:

·       In relation to application 17/00457/FUL, Cllr Tony Deane noted that he had worked for the same company as Mr Simon wheeler, but had left a decade before he was director of the company. As this did not constitute an interest, Cllr Deane took part in discussion and voted on this application.

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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed 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 will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 on (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before a Wednesday meeting) 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 (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before a Wednesday meeting). 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 for the period of 15/06/2018 to 13/07/2018.

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

Resolved

That the appeals report for the period of 15/06/2018 to 13/07/2018 be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Energy Storage Capacity Mechanism Plant to Support the National Grid

Public Participation

Selig Finklaire spoke in objection to the application

John Kirkman CPRE spoke in objection to the application

Joe Studholme spoke in objection to the application

Simon Wheeler Spoke in support to the application

Anthony Wells Spoke on behalf of Durnford and Woodford Parish Councils

The Senior Planning Officer, Richard Nash presented the application for an Energy Storage Capacity Mechanism Plant to support the National Grid, at Court Farm, Lower Woodford. The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

He explained that this application had been deferred twice, the first so that a  site visit could be held, and the second time to received comments on the late correspondence which had been received from the applicant.

The Transport Statement showed approaches from the south of the site, using Camp Hill. It detailed that 16.5m long articulated vehicles would be used to transport materials to the site during the construction stage. A 13.5m axel crane would also be used on site. There would be approximately 252 various movements over the 15 week build phase.

Highways has commented that the existing visibility splays were sufficient for the development.

The late correspondence circulated at the meeting explained that land in private ownership could be designated as public highway.

Over 130 objections had been received and more were also included in the late correspondence.

The advice from the Fire Service as detailed in the late correspondence, could be included as a informative, if Planning Permission was granted.

The Archaeologist remained content with their advice in the main report.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted that works could be carried out on the highway without the owners permission.

It was confirmed that there had not been any pre-application discussions and that there was no legal requirement for the applicant to do so.

It was understood that the appliant had looked at alternative sites, however he was not obliged to provide information on that as part of this application.

The Landscape Officer had made an assessment prior to the May meeting.

Central Government encouraged Local Authorities to support ways of energy efficiency.

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

Some of the main points covered were that almost 150 people had registered objections to the application, and that those representations highlighted concerns including the possible noise that would be generated from the site. Whilst local residents were in support of the principle of the energy plant, it was widely felt that this particular site was inappropriate, and that further investigations in to alternative sites should be considered.

However it was also noted by the applicant’s representative that the application site had been chosen as it met with all requirements, and was recommended for approval by the Local Authority.

The Parish Council representative drew attention to two new pieces of information which had come to light. It was felt that the new designated access route via Camp Hill and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 310.

Erection of 2 bay garage/outbuilding (Resubmission of 17/00444/FUL)

Public Participation

Steve Young (agent) spoke in support of the application

Trevor King Spoke in Objection on behalf of Whiteparish Parish Council

Planning Officer Christos Chrysanthou presented the application for the erection of a 2 bay garage/outbuilding (Resubmission of 17/00444/FUL). The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

The Officer noted that the previous application had been refused in April 2017. This application differed in that the proposed garage had now moved back 1.5m away from the road, compared to its location on the previous application. The new proposal also included the planting of beech hedging to the front of the site, to provide some screening.

The Parish Council had objected to the proposal and there were two neighbour objections also.

Highways had suggested limiting the height of the proposed hedge to 600mm.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer, where it was noted that the hedge on the front of the property next door was already well over 600mm in height, as there were no current restrictions in the area.

There had not been a pre-application discussion. The dimensions of the proposed garage were W 6.1m, D 5.8m, and H 4.1m to roof ridge.

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

The Local Ward Member Cllr Richard Britton moved the motion of refusal, against Officer recommendation, on the grounds of, the scale and design of the development, and the visual impact upon the surrounding area, and its relationship to adjoining properties. This was seconded by Cllr Jeans.

Cllr Britton noted that the movement back from the road of about 1m did not seem to address any of the reasons for refusal given for the previous application.

The application proposed screening, which Highways stated must be kept to 600mm, therefore it could not be accepted as screening.

He felt that this was a prominent alien feature in this road. The other garages

were set back or careened from the road. The development would have a major impact on the street scene and on the adjoining property Mulberry House, which was slightly set back.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included, that other properties in the area which had garages, did not have them at the front.

There would be a negative impact on the neighbour, and the street scene, as this was a large 2 car garage.

The application did not differ in a way to address the reasons for refusal given last time.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal.

Resolved

That application 18/03584/FUL be refused against Officer recommendation for the following reason:

The development proposal is substantially the same as the previously refused scheme (LPA ref: 17/00444/FUL). The proposed garage would be sited directly in front of the main dwellinghouse and would be readily visible in the surrounding street scene, being positioned closer to the road than the existing dwellinghouses. The proposed garage, by reason of its scale,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 311.

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