Agenda item

            That the wording of the suggested reasons for refusal in relation to application 052334 accurately reflected the resolution made at the Special Planning and Development Control Committee on 12^th February 2015. 

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 detailed the background to the report and explained that the reasons for refusal had been based on highways and landscape grounds and wording for the suggested reasons for refusal was reported in paragraph 6.03. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation that the wording of the suggested reasons for refusal in relation to application 052334 did accurately reflect the resolution made at the Special Planning and Development Control Committee on 12^th February 2015.  This was duly seconded.

            Councillor Alison Halford queried whether the highway reasons for refusal needed strengthening.  The main reasons discussed had related to unsuitability of Oakenholt Lane/Kelsterton Lane as an access route to the site and Councillor Halford asked whether the conflict with policies TWH1 and TWH2 as referred to by Councillor Richard Jones had been considered.  It had been suggested that 4.8 metres was not wide enough and that to increase the width of the lane would result in the destruction of ancient hedgerow which should be protected.  Councillor Halford felt that the highways reasons for refusal should also be strengthened to include the access and egress on Oakenholt Lane/Kelsterton Lane.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred with Councillor Halford that inclusion of the conflict with polices would strengthen the Council’s case in an appeal situation.  Councillor Neville Phillips said that Councillor Rita Johnson had circulated a letter to Members about issues relating to Oakenholt Lane and the A548 which were not mentioned in the report.  Councillor David Roney felt that removal of the footpath to widen the road was unacceptable. 

            In response, the officer commented on the letter that Councillor Phillips had referred to and explained that those comments had been reflected in the late observations sheet submitted to the meeting on 12^th February 2015.  He felt that the decision of the Committee at that meeting on the reasons for refusal had been interpreted correctly on the issues of highways and landscape impact.  The two aspects of the refusal were detailed in the report and reasons reflected the comments made at the meeting and those referred to in the late observations circulated earlier.  He commented on the removal of a small amount of hedgerow and two trees that were in a poor condition and he felt that reason two addressed the concerns raised on landscape issues. 

            Councillor Halford felt that a third reason for refusal was required on the issue of safety and the protection of the hedgerows. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that it was difficult to sustain a reason for refusal by referring to policies if the harm from the proposal could not be identified.  He recalled that the Council’s Tree Officer had advised that the trees to be removed were in a poor condition and were not worthy of retention.  He commented on policies TWH1 and TWH2 and on the issue of removing the verge to widen the road, he reminded Members that there was currently no formal walkway in place for pedestrians in this area. 

            In response to a comment from Councillor Halford that officers could suggest wording for a reason for refusal on pedestrian safety and retention of the hedgerow, the Democracy and Governance Manager advised that Members should suggest amendments to reasons for refusal the officers had given.  An unbiased view had been provided by officers and an explanation had been provided of why the additional reasons for refusal suggested by Councillor Halford could not be evidenced. 

            The Democracy and Governance Manager said that Members were being asked to confirm if the reported reasons for refusal were correct and added that new reasons could not be introduced at this stage. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that adding in extra reasons was not necessary and said that what had been discussed was included in reasons 1 and 2.

            RESOLVED:

            That the wording of the suggested reasons for refusal in relation to application 052334 accurately reflected the resolution made at the Special Planning and Development Control Committee on 12^th February 2015.