Proposed variation of condition 10 of planning permission SE1999/2612/F granted on appeal (reference: APP/W1850/A/00/1039625) for 22 holiday chalets with parking facilities – ‘original’ planning permission reference: SS980398PF) to explicitly detail the approved drawings at Hartleton Farm, Bromsash, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 7SB.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr A Reeves of Linton Parish Council spoke on the application. Mr J Arrowsmith a local resident spoke in objection to the application. A statement from Mr D Baume, the applicant’s agent, in support of the application was read to the committee.

In accordance with the council's constitution the proxy local ward member spoke on the application. Councillor Yolande Watson queried why site visits had not taken place and why the legal opinion sought by the council regarding the application had not been shared. The absence of a site plan was raised and the discernible difference in the position of the access on the landscape plan from the permission granted. The inconsistency of planning permission references was raised as a concern. It was proposed that the applicant could be asked to submit another application. The committee was encouraged to refer to the submission from counsel, as commissioned by the local community. The work that had been undertaken on site was not considered to comply with section 73 (2) (b) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which undermined the claim that permission was extant.

The committee debated the application.

The lead development manager explained that the need for a site visit was discussed with the chairman but it was not felt necessary as the decision to be made by the committee was a technicality. The principal planning officer explained that there was a discrepancy between the site access on the permission and on the Landscape plan. Once the Landscape plan had been accepted by the planning department the new access had superseded that contained in the permission. Counsel's advice had been sought on this matter and there was felt to be no issue.  Case law had established an objective test as to when development had commenced; works were deemed to have started on the site therefore the permission was extant. It was noted that conditions 1, 2 and 6 were are all compliance conditions that required development to be carried out in accordance with details concerning materials, landscape and drainage that were approved by letter dated 9th December 2003. The letter would be appended to the decision notice which would be sent to the applicant.

The proxy local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. She urged the deferral of the application to allow the committee to undertake a site visit to see the scrapings that represented the commencement of development. The scrapings were not felt to be compliant with lawful material commencement contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A proper site plan was required which complied with condition 10 otherwise approval would be based on the landscape plan.

A motion that the application be approved was carried.