Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

Councillor Nabil Najjar

Councillor Rich Rogers

Councillor Sam Charleston who was substituted by Councillor Trevor Carbin

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2024 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 on Thursday 5 September 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 9 September 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 Update.

Outline Application for up to 30 dwellings with all matters reserved (except access)

Public Participation

Mr Mike Dent spoke in objection to the application

Miss Bridget Hollman spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Andrew Black (Agent) registered to speak, but decided not to after hearing the Officer presentation

Cllr Elaine Hartford of Alderbury Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lynda King, introduced a report which recommended that the Outline Application for up to 30 dwellings with all matters reserved (except access), be approved.

The main issues which were considered to be material in the determination of the application were listed in the report as, Principle and Policy issues, Impact on residential amenity, Impact on highway systems, Impact on ecology, Drainage and flooding issues and S106 and viability matters.

The site planning history was outlined, including details on a previous Appeal decision, a copy of which was published as supplement 1 to the agenda.

The Officer explained that the Inspector had considered the application site could be treated as infill if a development to the north (also granted at appeal outside of the settlement boundary) had been developed and had dismissed any issues on highways safety. At the time of the appeal, the council did not have a 5-year land supply.

Attention was drawn to page 26 of the report relating to housing supply and delivery issues. The Officer noted that at the time of writing the report the council had a 4-year land supply and that since the publication of the agenda, there had been an appeal decision which had concluded that council now only had a 3.85 years land supply, which meant that the councils current position was that it no longer had a 4 year land supply. 

Reference was made to an appeal decision from Dorset where the Inspector had made a relevant point to consider commented that the Written Ministerial Statement that accompanied the consultation on revisions to the NPPF in July 2024 was now . Now part of current national planning policy guidance  …. Lynda can you edit this to make sense please. This document commented that the direction of travel of planning policy was to endeavour to deliver more housing nationally.

The application site was in a sustainable location, surrounded by housing development on all sides, this and the current settlement boundary was set out in the presentation slides.

Pre appeal the site had previously been wooded and the trees had been clear felled prior to the submission of the earlier planning applications in 2018. At the time as there were no TPOs the Forestry Commission investigated whether there was an offence and determined no offence had taken place, as the land was considered an overgrown garden.

The status of the site from a planning point of view was that it was technically brownfield land and therefore, should be considered before greenfield sites were considered for development.

Onsite mitigation for biodiversity net gain could not be provided, the applicant had agreed to enter into a S106 agreement to provide off  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

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