Agenda item

            That option 1 be accepted to determine the application (which was next on the agenda) at this Committee meeting. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 23 July 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.   

            The officer explained that a public inquiry on a duplicate application was to be heard in August 2012.  The report was asking the Committee to determine whether it wanted to maintain its previous stance of deferring determination of the application to await the outcome of the public inquiry or whether in the light of the changed circumstances which were reported the Committee now wished to determine the application.  

            Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed that option 2 (to continue to defer determination pending the appeal decision on application reference 049154 notwithstanding the changed circumstances) be approved which was duly seconded.  He stated that it was reported that if the current application was determined positively then the non determination appeal would be withdrawn and serious consideration would be given to the applicant not applying for an award of costs against the Council for unreasonable behaviour; he felt that inducements were being offered to pass the application.  The application for 700 houses which had been allocated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) had not been delivered and the reserved matters consent had now expired.  Councillor Heesom felt that the affordable housing element of the application should be 30% and not 10% as was indicated in the report and he felt that the BREEAM standards should also be brought up to date.  He said that there was no alternative but to let the Inspector take the course he wanted to and proposed that the Committee choose option 2. 

             The local Member, Councillor R. Johnson addressed the Committee and agreed that option 2 was the most appropriate and concurred with the concerns about the appropriateness of the offer costs not being sought if the application was approved.  She felt that it was an attempt to renew approval of the reserved matters and added that the five year consent had expired without any reasonable progress being made on the site.  She added that, to ensure proper scrutiny of the application, it be allowed to progress to appeal and be heard in the Public Inquiry. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell said that legal advice had been sought and that it should be followed; Councillor D. Butler concurred with the comments. Councillor W.O. Thomas felt that policy should be followed on the application and Councillor D. Cox said that the outline planning permission had been in place for a significant period and that it was now time to move forward and determine the application. 

            In response to comments made, the officer explained that the outline planning permission was still extant and did not expire until July 2013.  The route taken by the applicant was a legitimate request and the officer reminded Members that no objections had been raised to the duplicate application so it was appropriate to deal with this application today. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager said that Counsel’s advice had been sought and he had drawn to Member’s attention the risks associated with not dealing with the application which was next on the agenda; he advised that he shared the view of the barrister. 

            In summing up, Councillor Heesom said that the site had been allocated for housing and that Members had a duty to ensure that the proposal was brought forward in line with current policy.  He raised concern about how the application reference 049154 which was the subject of the appeal had been dealt with.  He said that the Inspector was bound to look at the application in line with current planning policy. 

            Councillor Heesom requested a recorded vote and was supported by the requisite five Members.  On being put to the vote, the proposal to accept option 2 (to continue to defer determination pending the appeal decision on application reference 049154 not withstanding the changed circumstances) was refused by 13 votes to 8 with the voting being as follows:-

            FOR – ACCEPTING OPTION 2

Councillors: V. Gay, A.M. Halford, R.G. Hampson, P.G. Heesom, R. Lloyd, M.J. Peers, N.R. Steele-Mortimer and W.O. Thomas

AGAINST – ACCEPTING OPTION 2

R.C. Bithell, D. Butler, D. Cox, I. Dunbar, C.A. Ellis, D. Evans, J. Falshaw, C.M. Jones, R.B. Jones, M. Lowe, N. Phillips, H.G. Roberts and D.E. Wisinger

As the vote was lost, a vote was taken to accept option 1 and was CARRIED.

            RESOLVED:

            That option 1 be accepted to determine the application (which was next on the agenda) at this Committee meeting.