Agenda and minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Page and seconded by Councillor Ruffles, that Councillor Stowe be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee for the 2022/23 civic year.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that Councillor Stowe be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee for the 2022/23 civic year.

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Kemp. It was noted that Councillor Rutland-Barsby was substituting for Councillor Kemp.

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

To receive any Members' declarations of interest.

Councillor Stowe declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 3/21/1925/FUL, on the grounds that he had previously made a referral request to the Chairman for this matter to come before the Development Management Committee citing planning reasons. He said that, whilst the proposed conditions had addressed and alleviated his concerns, he felt that he could be perceived as having judged the application by virtue of the referral request.

Councillor Stowe left the Council Chamber and took no part in the decision making process in respect of application 3/21/1925/FUL.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on:

Tuesday 22 February 2022

Wednesday 2 March 2022

Councillor Beckett proposed and Councillor Ruffles seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2022 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Minute 353 – delete in 28^th paragraph – ‘river way crossing’

Replace with ‘…River Way Crossing’.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED. Councillor Rutland-Barsby abstained from voting as she had not been present at the meeting.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2022, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Minute 353 – delete in 28^th paragraph – ‘river way crossing’

Replace with ‘…River Way Crossing’

Councillor Crystall proposed and Councillor Redfern seconded, a motion that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2022 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED. Councillor Rutland-Barsby abstained from voting as she had not been present at the meeting.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2022, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/21/1576/OUT, outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report and also subject to a Section 106 legal agreement. Delegated authority would be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the legal agreement and the conditions and to refuse the application in the event a legal agreement is not completed to the Council’s satisfaction.

The Development Management Team Manager drew the attention of the Committee to a number of late representations that had been summarised for Members.

The Development Management Team Leader summarised matters in the late representations summary and said that the Authority had complied with the statement of community involvement.

The Development Management Team Leader explained that this was an outline application and said that outline applications were used to gain an understanding from the local planning authority as to the acceptability of the principle of a development. Members were advised that the only matter to be considered was the proposed access and all other matters were reserved.

The Development Management Team Leader advised that this site remained a designated employment area as detailed in the 2007 Local Plan and this designation had been carried forward into the 2018 District Plan. Members were advised of the use classes that were relevant to this application and were advised that the current 6,000 square metres of floor space would increase to up to 20,590 square metres.

Members were advised that the proposed access was to be relocated to the south and improved so that two HGVs could pass safely or adversely affecting the amenity of the nearest dwelling. The Development Management Team Leader said that the proposals had come forward with sustainable transport principles and a mobility hub on the site. An overarching travel plan would be provided and conditioned and a bespoke travel plan would be required for each individual unit that would be occupied on this site.

Members were advised that condition 2 required that a phasing plan should be submitted that would outline how the developer should seek to provide opportunities for existing occupiers on the site to be retained and ensure a range of unit sizes to accommodate a range of occupiers.

The Development Management Team Leader said that the Local Flood Authority had raised concerns in respect of the capacity of the site to provide sustainable drainage options. She said that these details had been conditioned and Officers did not consider that these concerns would prevent the Council from determining the application.

Members were provided with a detailed slide presentation in respect of the application and were reminded that a full range of conditions was proposed. The Development Management Team Leader said that and granting the access arrangements would not enable any development without the discharge of all of the proposed conditions.

Mr Ghataoura addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. Mr Andrews spoke for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/21/1925/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed at the end of the report submitted with delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the conditions and to issue the permission.

The Interim Development Management Team Manager summarised the minor application and set out the relevant background information for Members. He detailed the late representations that had been received and referred to an equine needs assessment.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader talked about the sustainability of the development and summarised the policy considerations and referred in particular to policies DPS2 and ED2 and in detail in respect of policy HOU5. He said that this Metropolitan Green Belt site would be occupied by a worker serving as a yard manager and that the essential need for this accommodation on site had been satisfactorily demonstrated.

Members were advised that a residential dwelling would not normally be permitted in the Green Belt. The Interim Development Team Leader referred to the close ties to the equine business and three relevant policy strands. He referred in particular to conditions 4 and 5 in the report and the stipulation that the residential use would cease if the site was no longer to be used as an equine business.

The Committee was advised that two relevant exceptions for development in the Green Belt could be applied in this case. The Interim Development Management Team Leader said that one exception was the partial or total redevelopment of a previously developed site and the other matter was the change of use. He talked about the tests that had to be met for caravans in the green belt and said that use of part of a site for a caravan required planning permission. Members were advised that the caravan itself did not require planning permission and a key point was the preservation of green belt openness.

Mr Miles addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Fernando said that his sole remaining concern was the siting of what was a large property in the green belt. He commented on whether there was a need for such a large caravan in the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Councillor Andrews asked if permitted development rights should be removed or restricted in case the business did not remain in the same ownership or control. Councillor Crystall asked for clarity in respect of condition 4 and the status of the worker living in the proposed caravan and he asked if the link between the caravan and the equine business be overturned by a further planning permission.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader talked about planning balance and said that Officers considered that the proposed development was acceptable. He said that if the occupant retired in place then Officers would assess that situation at that point, should an application be made for additional accommodation.

Members were advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

(A)  Appeals against refusal of Planning Permission/ non?determination.

(B)  Planning Appeals Lodged.

(C)      Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates.

(D)     Planning Statistics.

RESOLVED – that the following reports be noted:

(A)   Appeals against refusal of planning permission / non-determination;

(B)       Planning Appeals lodged;

(C)       Planning Appeals: Inquiry and Informal Hearing Dates; and

(D)      Planning Statistics.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration and is not likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information.

There was no urgent business.