Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillors Ray Hughes and Phil Lightfoot both declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application as they were governors of Castell Alun School and Ysgol Derwen respectively:-

Agenda Item 6.1 - Full application - Erection of 56 No. Dwellings with Associated Access, Open Space and Infrastructure at Kinnerton Lane, Higher Kinnerton (054770)

Councillors Ray Hughes and Phil Lightfoot both declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application as they were governors of Castell Alun School and Ysgol Derwen respectively:-

Agenda Item 6.1 - Full application - Erection of 56 No. Dwellings with Associated Access, Open Space and Infrastructure at Kinnerton Lane, Higher Kinnerton (054770)

The Chairman allowed Members an opportunity to read the late observations which had been circulated at the meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2016.

That, subject to the amendments, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2016 were submitted.

Accuracy

On planning application reference 054768, Councillor Mike Peers asked that the minutes be amended to reflect that his reason for withdrawing his proposal was to support the deferral of the application for further discussion.  This was duly seconded.

On planning application reference 054007, Councillor Peers clarified that his request for a report by the Housing Strategy Manager to explain the rationale behind suggested affordable housing provision applied to all similar items submitted to the Committee and that this had been agreed by officers.  The Service Strategy Manager confirmed that the information would be included in future reports, as agreed with the newly appointed Affordable Housing Manager.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the amendments, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that none of the agenda items were recommended for deferral by officers.

That planning permission be refused.

The Chief Officer advised that a report would be brought to the next meeting to clarify the proposed reasons for refusal.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 July 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer advised that although the application was outside the settlement boundary, it complied with all the UDP policies and Planning Policy Wales guidance.  He considered the lack of a five year land supply to be a material consideration in this case and recommended that conditional planning permission be granted, subject to the Section 106 provisions outlined within the report.  As a point of accuracy, condition 14 should have indicated that no dwelling was to be occupied until the works in condition 13 were completed.

As the Local Member, Councillor Phil Lightfoot spoke against the application.  Whilst he had a number of concerns, he specifically questioned the adequacy of drainage due to the presence of freshwater springs.  He acknowledged the advice given by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) about the increased potential for flooding, adding that the increased flow of water from the development increased the risk of flooding downstream to Lower Kinnerton.  He referred to flooding concerns raised by a number of local residents and sought assurances that the drainage system removing water from the site would be subject to regular maintenance by NRW, which had not been the case over the past five years.  Councillor Phil Lightfoot then withdrew from the meeting.

Mr. J. Brautigam spoke against the application on the basis that it represented a significant departure from the UDP, was outside the defined settlement boundary and within open countryside.  He stated that failure of the Council to have a five year plan was not a reason to grant approval and that the development did little to address the shortage in affordable housing.  He pointed out that Higher Kinnerton had delivered its quota through its 10% growth over the planned period and therefore there was no reason to deliver the next phase of the development.  He highlighted the range of housing available in the area where some properties had remained unsold for some time.  He described the proposals as impractical and dangerous, citing no safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities and no easy safe pedestrian access from Kinnerton Lane to the village.

Mr. P. Lloyd, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and thanked the officers for their assistance.  He referred to the Inspector’s decision to allow the appeal under Agenda Item 6.15 and drew a number of comparisons with this application such as it being outside the settlement boundary, compliance with the Council’s approach to housing site releases, the five year supply and the need to release such land outweighing any open countryside harm.  He said that the ongoing need to deliver housing was a material consideration and that the officers had given considerable weight to providing supply in line with national policy.  He said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) with an additional condition for vehicle movements to be amended from 300 to 200 movements on Saturdays (100 in/100 out) and subject to a Section 106 Agreement, Unilateral Undertaking or earlier payment to secure the following:-

The sum of £17,000 towards road resurfacing works and an anti-skid surface at the junction of the B5123 and Bryn Emlyn, Pentre Halkyn; and

The sum of £1,000 towards repairs to a fence adjacent to the cattle grid on Martin’s Hill, Pentre Halkyn.

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

The officer explained that the report had been deferred from the meeting in June to consider a number of concerns raised by the Committee and third parties on controlling vehicle movements at the site.  To address this, conditions 15-17 had been amended to restrict HGVs entering the site until 0615 Monday-Saturday and to allow a maximum number of eleven HGVs to leave the site between 0600 and 0630 hours Monday-Saturday.  A further revision to limit the number of vehicle movements on Saturdays from 300 to 200 (100 in/100 out) was also recommended, as set out in the late observations.  The changes to conditions suggested by the third party at the June meeting could not be implemented as there were no material reasons to do so.  Given the revised conditions to enable greater control to on-site activities, the officer felt there was no material reason to refuse the application.

Mr. D. Bartlett stated his original intention to oppose the application to seek a reduction in the number of HGVs travelling through Pentre Halkyn on Saturdays.  He acknowledged the applicant’s commitment to reduce the maximum number of HGVs at the site on Saturdays to 200 and the noise-reducing measures and repairs agreed as part of the consultation in December.  He also noted the applicant’s subsequent agreement to limit the maximum number of HGVs leaving the quarry before 0630 hours and to prohibit HGVs entering the quarry before 0615 hours.  As a consequence of this and the applicant’s agreement to reduce the number of HGVs using the village roads on Saturday, Mr. Bartlett withdrew his objections to the application.  He thanked all those involved for their work during the process, including the applicant, stating that early morning disturbance in the village would reduce to a more acceptable level if other quarries imposed similar conditions.  He said that residents would continue to seek a resolution to the 15 specific concerns which remained outstanding from the consultation process and welcomed any support from Members on this.

For the applicant, Mr. I. Southcott said that a response was no longer required in view of the above.

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the officer recommendation for approval of the application together with the additional condition in the late observations.  He felt that the issues on vehicle movements had mainly been addressed and referred to the restrictions in Circular 11/95.  He pointed out that local communities had benefited from commuted sums and suggested that this could be put to better use in the future to address some of the outstanding concerns of residents.

His proposal was seconded by Councillor Derek Butler who praised the positive outcome which had been achieved through amicable and open-minded discussions.

As Local Member, Councillor Colin Legg spoke in support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) and the following additional conditions:

31.    Phasing plan to ensure conversion of the Listed Building prior to commencement on the new build element.

32.    Standard drainage conditions.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

The officer explained that this was a full planning application with accompanying Listed Building Consent for residential development of 89 units at the site, amending the previous consent given for 47 units in 2014.  Due to the cost implications in converting the Listed Building, the new developer had submitted a different scheme.  The viability assessment indicated only minor profit from the scheme, however the development did seek to achieve the main objective to preserve the Listed Building which had been deteriorating over time.  No objections had been received from statutory parties and it was recommended that an additional condition be included on phasing to ensure conversion of the Listed Building before new build elements, together with standard drainage conditions by Welsh Water.  Clarification was also given on the number of units in each block.

Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed to accept the officer recommendations with the additional conditions.  He referred to developers’ obligations to communities and expressed his disappointment that this would not be the case on this application.  However, he supported the scheme and particularly welcomed the work phasing as this would help to improve the appearance of the front of the building.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Chris Bithell who sought clarification on whether the proposed 122 car parking spaces were adequate for the scale of the development.

Councillor Richard Jones pointed out that references to the ‘viability’ and ‘competitiveness’ of applications should not form part of any report if these were not deemed material considerations.

Councillor Mike Peers agreed with the view shared by Councillor Jones.  In terms of parking spaces, he pointed out that the development of new build units on the car park area reduced parking capacity.  He asked for the number of spaces needed for the new build block and whether the required number of 133 spaces could be provided.

In response to the issues raised, the officer confirmed the inclusion of an additional condition on the phasing plan to ensure that work on the Listed Building elements were carried out prior to the new build.  In terms of wording used in the report, viability of the scheme was considered to ensure the restoration of the Listed Building to an appropriate standard.  Confidential financial details submitted by the developer had been carefully assessed, allowing the need for some level of profit on the scheme.  Although there were less parking spaces than would normally be required, the scheme was considered acceptable due to a number of other factors such as the nature of the site, proximity to the town centre and the condition for a full Travel Plan.

The Service Manager Strategy referred to the long-term condition of this important Listed Building which would continue to deteriorate if not developed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

That Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to referral to Cadw and the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

The officer recommended approval to Cadw on the basis that the conversion of the site was sympathetic to the appearance of the Listed Building and most of the adaptations were internal.

Councillor Gareth Roberts’ proposal to accept the officer recommendation was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, this was carried.

RESOLVED:

That Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to referral to Cadw and the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 July 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer advised that the scheme complied with the principles of the UDP and PPW, and that the site comprised 25% Grade 3a land with the remaining 75% as Grade 3b.  The siting of solar panels in arrays across 1.4 hectares of the Grade 3a land was considered acceptable given that this would not result in a permanent loss of agricultural land.  Alternative options had been ruled out due to a number of reasons and the location of the site was considered to be acceptable given the size.  Issues raised during assessments of the site would be mitigated over time through the landscaping proposals and land stability issues had been addressed by amending the layout.

In speaking against the application, Mrs. J. Davies highlighted the need to protect the rural environment and raised concerns about the increase in construction traffic accessing the area and site via a country lane.  Whilst she understood the need for renewable energy, she felt that the scheme should be located in a more suitable area, rather than on unspoilt Greenfield land.  She called upon the Committee to reject the application on that basis and feared that approval would set a precedent for more land to become commercialised.

Councillor Ray Hughes proposed that the application be approved.  Whilst he sympathised with the comments raised on the visual impact, he could find no reason to refuse it and had no issues arising from the site visit.  He went on to say that the Committee was only considering the application due to the size of the site.

In seconding the proposal, Councillor Ian Dunbar acknowledged the concerns raised by the third party speaker but supported the application as most of the issues had been addressed.  He added that following the 25 year period for the solar farm, the land could still be used for grazing purposes and that only the top two fields were Grade 3a land.

Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the proposed conditions in the report and asked if the great crested newts could survive underneath the panels.  In response to the concerns raised about the location, he questioned whether an alternative site, perhaps on Brownfield land, could be identified in order to protect this Grade 3a land which was the most versatile available.  He also questioned why a 25 year period had been set for the scheme and commented that the land may have deteriorated after that time.  He went on to refer to a similar application previously considered by the Committee which had been refused on the grounds of no end user for the electricity and sought clarification on the Council’s policy on this.

Councillor Derek Butler also raised issues on exploring other sites and there being no end user.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

That conditional permission be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) and either a Section 106 Agreement, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment to secure the following:-

The sum of £23,300 towards the enhancement of existing play facilities at Coed Mor play area, Pen-y-Ffordd, such sum to be paid prior to the occupation of 50% of the approved dwellings.

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer gave the background to the application which complied with the necessary policies.  Although the land was not allocated for housing development, it was within the settlement boundary and officers had taken into consideration the consent granted to an affordable housing application to the east of the site, which was originally part of this land.  No objections had been raised on the access, and the adjacent play area would benefit from a commuted sum.

Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed to accept the officer recommendation to grant the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Neville Phillips who questioned whether sufficient time was given for Town and Community Councils to respond on applications in general.  The Chief Officer advised that a six week period applied in this case which was more than adequate to make representations.

Councillor Chris Bithell asked whether there was a need for the scheme as the report referred to Penyffordd being ‘adequately catered for’ in section 7.11  The Service Manager Strategy said that the contribution to housing land supply in the county was of a greater need, given the location within the settlement boundary.  He referred to the design of the scheme which was in keeping with the area and the need to balance this with development in this part of the county.

In summing up, Councillor Roberts proposed approval as the scheme was within the settlement boundary.  On being put the vote, this was carried.

RESOLVED:

That conditional permission be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) and either a Section 106 Agreement, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment to secure the following:-

The sum of £23,300 towards the enhancement of existing play facilities at Coed Mor play area, Pen-y-Ffordd, such sum to be paid prior to the occupation of 50% of the approved dwellings.

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application.

That planning permission be granted subject to entering into a S106 agreement or unilateral undertaking to link this development with the requirement for the affordable housing provision and the open space contributions as required by 052388 and 054206.

1.         Time commencement

2.         In accordance with plans

3.         Other conditions relevant on 052388 and 054206

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within two months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer presented the application for the substitution of house types on the previously consented Phase 2 of residential development at land at Cae Eithin.  This change did not raise any issues on adverse impacts on the residential amenity and it was recommended that the application be granted subject to the conditions within the report.  The late observations included an amendment stating that there were no education contributions to Phase 2 of this site and that contributions were CIL compliant.

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed acceptance of the officer recommendation subject to the conditions and amendment.  This was duly seconded and on being put to the vote, was carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to entering into a S106 agreement or unilateral undertaking to link this development with the requirement for the affordable housing provision and the open space contributions as required by 052388 and 054206.

1.         Time commencement

2.         In accordance with plans

3.         Other conditions relevant on 052388 and 054206

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within two months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application.

That conditional planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) and a Section 106 Agreement, Unilateral Undertaking or earlier payment to secure the following:-

The sum of £1,100 per dwelling to enhance toddler play facilities at Queens Way play area.

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within two months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

In presenting the report, the officer explained that this was a full planning application for the erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and gardens.  Reference was made to a nearby previous application for four dwellings which was the subject of a forthcoming appeal.  Although outside the settlement boundary, the proposed development was situated adjacent to a Category B settlement in a highly sustainable location with no scope for further encroachment on the open countryside.  The scheme also contributed to a mix of housing types in the area, together with the medical centre adjacent to the site.  The principles of the development were considered acceptable with no requirement for a local need test due to the location adjacent to a Category B settlement and its modest contribution towards the five year supply.

As the agent, Mr. D. McChesney explained that the site had originally formed part of the development proposals for the medical centre and having been deemed surplus to requirements, had been included in various subsequent planning applications.  He therefore felt it was important to view the application in the context of the medical centre and that its contribution towards the five year land supply was a material consideration outweighing the location outside the settlement boundary.  He said that the scheme was viable and sustainable, and that the site was completely land-locked and posed only limited harm to the open countryside.  Planning permission previously granted on the site demonstrated its viability for development.  He said that the proposals presented no impact to Wat’s Dyke and would contribute towards identified local housing need with a design in keeping with the area.  He described the development as a logical extension to the settlement pattern with access to local amenities and safe vehicular movement within the site.

Councillor Mike Peers’ proposal that planning permission be refused was duly seconded.  He referred to the refusal of a similar application considered at the March meeting which was also outside the settlement boundary.  He felt that the application should not be considered in the same context as the medical centre, which adhered to GEN3, and that this application was not an infill development as it extended to outside the settlement boundary.  He pointed out that the site had no access points and that the requirements of the UDP in terms of housing policies and TAN1 should be a material consideration and not outweighed by the position on a five year supply.

As Local Member, Councillor Tim Newhouse spoke against the proposals.  He referred to the unanimous decision made by the Committee in March to reject the application for four houses at the northern end of the site as this was outside the settlement boundary.  He said that the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

That the application be deferred to allow clarification of the site area and density in relation to earlier applications and the UDP allocation.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer provided background to the application for the development of a 0.94 hectare site for 24 No. dwellings together with associated highway and infrastructure works.  The application had previously been considered in 2013 and was included in the UDP for the purposes of residential development.  The officer highlighted the potential for bats around the site and said that a survey had been undertaken on which Natural Resources Wales had raised no objections, subject to the appropriate conditions and acquisition of a licence.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr. P. Darwin, said that the report benefited from housing allocation and previous permission given for 23 No. dwellings, thus establishing the principles of development on the site and access to the main road.  He said that the development would provide a mix of property types at a scale and density in keeping with the area, which would contribute towards local housing demand.  The site layout had been agreed with officers and followed the principles of the previous scheme.  The site was located within the settlement boundary with easy access to local facilities and no objections had been received.  Mr. Darwin said that this was a deliverable and viable scheme within the settlement boundary and would provide a range of economic benefits including housing, additional Council Tax revenue and S106 contributions.

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the officer recommendation for approval of the application, which was duly seconded.  Whilst he had no objections to the application as it was within the settlement boundary, he asked whether the capacity issues with the sewerage works had been resolved as this had been a factor in the previous application.

Councillor Derek Butler spoke about an issue with an adjacent development and traffic in the area, but had no concerns in respect of planning.

Councillor Mike Peers pointed out reference in the report to the previous application on the site being determined in March 2011 where the resolution had included provision for contributions in lieu of affordable housing, as this was just below the threshold.  He said that the site was allocated in the UDP for 1.1 hectare, more than that stated in the current application, and that this should provide 25 units invoking the affordable housing element of the policy.  In view of this, he felt that further discussions were needed or a deferral to consider whether 25 units could be provided.

Councillor Richard Jones suggested that if the application was agreed, the time limit on the conditions should be changed from six months to twelve months.

In response to the question from Councillor Bithell, it was confirmed that a condition had been included in the previous application relating to works at the water station and that this had been completed, hence there had been no objections from Welsh Water to this application.

On  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The application had been brought to the Committee as the applicants were local Members.  It related to the change of use of the vacant post office to incorporate it into the existing dwelling of which it formed part, to provide additional living accommodation.  The late observations indicated that no objections had been received from Hawarden Community Council since preparation of the report.

Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed that the Committee approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.  He referred to the widespread closure of post offices and pointed out that there were other facilities within walking distance.

Councillor Derek Butler drew attention to the fact that the site had been marketed in excess of 12 months in line with the policy.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to grant permission was carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting and indicated no objection from Northop Community Council.

The officer summarised the background to the application for the erection of a side and rear extension with an improved access and double timber garage at the site.  The application also included the temporary siting of a storage container and static caravan for residential use whilst building work was being carried out.  It was stated that the applicant was related to an officer of the Planning section.

Councillor Marion Bateman proposed to accept the officer recommendation to grant approval, as this was a sympathetic extension to a unique cottage.  The proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor Chris Bithell sought assurances over the historical merit of the building and whether the proposals were in keeping with the property and its age.  In response, the officer said that the proposals had been the subject of negotiations and were sympathetic to the design, noting that it was not a listed building.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to grant permission was carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

That the suggested clauses of the S.106 be amended as detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application to seek approval for an amendment to the resolution made at the meeting on 16 December 2015 on the terms of the proposed Section 106 Agreement.

The officer explained that discussions since the meeting had raised concerns about the precise means and methods of affordability across 100% of the scheme.  Officers therefore recommended that the terms of the S106 Agreement be restricted to eight of the units to be made available on social rented terms.  The Service Manager Strategy advised that the application complied with the requirements of the policy.

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the officer recommendation for approval, which was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, this proposal was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the suggested clauses of the S.106 be amended as detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

That the applicant, the Council and other land owners be required to sign a deed of release to remove the Section 106 Agreement.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application for the removal of a S106 Agreement on the site in Northop, which sought to establish a newt habitat in mitigation for a residential development in Flint.  The officer confirmed that the removal of the S106 Agreement was considered to be acceptable as the site was now protected by current legislation and planning policy.

Councillor Marion Bateman proposed the officer recommendation for approval, which was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, this was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the applicant, the Council and other land owners be required to sign a deed of release to remove the Section 106 Agreement.

That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item which was considered to be exempt by virtue of paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item which was considered to be exempt by virtue of paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

That in light of legal advice, the Local Planning Authority should proceed on the basis of the recommendation contained in the officer’s report and not contest the appeal.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Governance) and Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) in light of advice received from the Local Planning Authority’s Barrister.  The officers provided background information to the report and outlined the reasons behind the recommendation.

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed that the recommendations be accepted which was duly seconded.

RESOLVED:

That in light of legal advice, the Local Planning Authority should proceed on the basis of the recommendation contained in the officer’s report and not contest the appeal.

There were 23 members of the public and two members of the press in attendance.