Apologies were received from Councillors BA Durkin, MAF Hubbard, RI Matthews, RL Mayo, TL Widdows and DB Wilcox.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor WLS Bowen attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews, Councillor JLV Kenyon substituted for Councillor TL Widdows, Councillor NP Nenadich for Councillor DB Wilcox and Councillor AJW Powers for Councillor MAF Hubbard.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

Agenda item 4: P142215 Land off Rosemary Lane, Leintwardine

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew some of the objectors.

Residential development of up to 45 dwellings (use class C3) means of access and associated works (with all other matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Residential development of up to 45 dwellings (use class C3) means of access and associated works (with all other matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He drew attention to the reference in the update to the intervention of the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) for the Department for Communities and Local Government and a proposed change to the recommendation recommending that the Committee be minded to approve the application..

He also commented that no agreement had yet been reached with the applicant over the provision of affordable housing within the development.  The Council had agreed that it would be acceptable in this case if the applicant paid a commuted sum in lieu of on site provision of affordable housing.  The Parish Council had indicated that this would be acceptable if the application were to be approved.

The Development Manager clarified that the NCPU had requested that, as stated in the update, should the Council be minded to grant permission that the decision not be issued until the Secretary of State had considered the case against his call-in policy and issued a decision. This did not prevent the Committee considering the application and making a recommendation, as it had done in the same circumstances on a number of previous occasions.  If the Committee decided that it was minded to approve the application the Secretary of State would then decide if he wished to call-in the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Kay of Leintwardine Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme together with Mrs C Parker a planning consultant employed by the Parish Council.  Mr D Collins and Ms N Vera-Sanso, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs L Steele, the Applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RJ Phillips spoke on the application in the role of local ward member, the local ward member having recently died and the seat being vacant.

He commented on a number of issues including:

The application was contentious and had generated considerable local opposition.

He acknowledged that no weight could be given to the draft Neighbourhood Plan and that regard had to be given to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply, noting a number of appeals against refusal of planning permission were outstanding.

However, he questioned the sustainability of the proposed development and the need for it.  He noted that given the location of Leintwardine need and sustainability had to be considered in the context of the economies of South Shropshire and Powys and their sustainability.  They did not form an economic hub.

The Core Strategy envisaged growth of approximately 35 dwellings during the plan period to 2031.  The proposal was for a single development of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

Proposed removal of condition 4 of planning permission DCNC2004/2013/F (conversion of cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage) to allow ‘Fodder Store’ to be used as a dwelling.

The Committee deferred determination of this application.

(Proposed removal of condition 4 of planning permission DCNC2004/2013/F (conversion of cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage) to allow ‘Fodder Store’ to be used as a dwelling.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He noted that, as referred to in the update, a legal opinion had been received from Mr R Humphries QC on behalf of he owner of the Olde Rectory.  He commented that the report addressed the issues raised in the legal opinion and there was nothing to prevent the Committee making a decision on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs M Williams, Chairman of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Woods, owner of the Olde Rectory, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith  the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor GR Swinford spoke on the application.  He gave a detailed analysis of the matter, supporting the argument advanced in the legal opinion advanced by Mr Humphries QC that the application was flawed and should be refused.

The Committee commenced discussion of the application.   Advice was sought on how the Committee should proceed, given the conflict between the advice in the report and the separate legal opinion that had been circulated to all Members.

The Planning Lawyer commented that insufficient information was available to provide immediate advice on the matter.  On the basis  of information provided by the applicant the procedure adopted by the assessing officer appeared entirely reasonable.  However, there was now a lack of clarity as to whether the 2010 planning permission had been implemented.  She therefore considered that there were grounds for deferring determination of the application pending the receipt of further information from the applicant.    

RESOLVED: That determination of the application be deferred pending the receipt of further information.

Date of next site inspection – 10 February 2015

Date of next meeting – 11 February 2015