Agenda, decisions and minutes

No declarations of interest were made.

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2017.

That, subject to the amendment listed above, the minutes be approved as a true and accurate record and signed by the Chairman.

The draft minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2017 were submitted.

            The Solicitor reported an amendment to page 6 of the minutes and advised that the last paragraph should be amended to read:-

            Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke declared she had already made her mind up in respect of the application and on having taken legal advice would speak as local Members only before the item was debated and then leave the room after speaking - agenda item number 7.5 – Full Application – Erection of Farm Shop and associated works, formation of new vehicular and pedestrian access at Coppy Farm, Cilcain Road, Gwernaffield (056664).

            Councillor Mike Peers commented on the new style of minutes and suggested that where third party speakers are recorded that this be made clear in the minutes.  He also suggested that a summary of the debate be included in the minutes.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) reported that the new style of minutes would be reviewed by the Planning Strategy Group in 12 months.

            In response to a question from Councillor Richard Jones, the Team Manager – Committee Service advised that the webcast recordings of all Planning Committee meetings would be retained indefinitely in the webcast library on the Council’s website.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the amendment listed above, the minutes be approved as a true and accurate record and signed by the Chairman.

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

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

The reports of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) are enclosed.

RESOLVED:

That decisions be recorded as shown on the Planning Applications schedule attached as an appendix.

That planning permission be refused against the officer’s recommendation.

That conditional permission be granted, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement, providing a unilateral undertaking or the making of an advance payment which provides for play equipment.

That planning permission be refused, in line with officer’s recommendation.

That planning permission be refused against the officer’s recommendation.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report in line with the officer’s recommendation.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Councillor Mike Peers commented that the Committee had unanimously refused this application and commented on the advice which had been given previously in 2010 by the Planning Officer that affordable housing was required on the site but rather than put them on the site the monies should be used for off-site affordable housing provision. However, the Inspector had commented that this did not accord with the adopted Development Plan so such obligation was not necessary in the case of the appeal development.

            He also commented on the Inspector’s report, but questioned the comments within the report which stated that no evidence had been provided and said that evidence had been provided on behalf of the Planning Committee.  He also questioned the Inspector’s comments around the character of the development and provision of affordable housing.    

RESOLVED:

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

On commencement of the meeting there were 13 members of the public in attendance.