Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler and EL Holton.

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

Councillor JA Hyde substituted for Councillor CR Butler.

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

Agenda item 8:  173699 – Land at Woonton, Almeley

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 9: 181353 – The Old Chapel , Tillington

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2018 and 15 May 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meetings held on 11 April 2018 and 15 May 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Full planning application for a pair of semi detached two storey three bed dwellings, associated infrastructure and landscaping.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(Full planning application for a pair of semi-detached two storey three bed dwellings, associated infrastructure and landscaping.)

The Development Manager (DM) 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 the Committee’s attention to the submission of two videos, in addition to the written submission included in the update, showing the brook by the application site in flood with standing water on parts of the site.  He added that the comments of the drainage consultant had been omitted from the report but were summarised in the update.  The consultant had no objections subject to conditions.  The site was not in a flood risk zone.  Policy LD4 had been omitted from the list of policies at paragraph 2.1 of the report but the policy implications were fully considered within the appraisal.  A correction was required to paragraph 6.49 of the report in that the restrictive policies in footnote 9 of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework were applicable given the setting of the listed asset. This meant that the tilted balance in favour of development did not strictly apply.  It was within the Committee’s remit to give weight to the harm caused by the proposal balancing that against any public benefits of the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking there was provision for Aston Ingham Parish Council to speak on the proposal.  As no member of the Parish Council was able to attend the meeting, a statement, which had previously been circulated to members of the Committee, was read out on their behalf by the local ward member.  The Parish Council opposed the scheme.  Mr P Tufnell, a consultant acting on behalf of a number of local residents spoke in objection to the application.  Miss J Wormald, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor H Bramer, spoke on the application.

He commented that Aston Ingham was a beautiful village. The application should be refused because the application site was adjacent to the church and detrimental to this heritage asset. In addition the site was situated in a crook between a pond and a stream.  Video evidence had been supplied of the site being flooded. 

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        It was noted that Historic England had no objection to the proposal but the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings Officer) (CMHBO) did object.

The DM commented that there was a difference of opinion as to the significance of the harm the development would cause.  He reiterated that in conducting the planning balance the Committee needed to weigh the harm against the scheme’s benefits.

·        Several members expressed the view that the development would be detrimental to the village.  The CMHBO had provided a thorough assessment of the proposal in his response.  Their conclusion was that the harm to heritage assets  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposed camp site and temporary dwelling.  This is an amended application that is a resubmission of application no. 172848 refused 6 October 2017.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application pending receipt of further information.

(Proposed camp site and temporary dwelling. An amended application, a resubmission of application 172848 refused under delegated powers 6 October 2017.)

The Development Manager (DM) 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs R Rennick the applicant spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor BA Durkin, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was considerable local support for the application. 

·        The proposal was to create an eco-focused sustainable tourism site.  It was not a simple camping site.  It was consistent with the three dimensions to sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework: economic, social and environmental.

·        An independent assessment provided with the application confirmed that the proposal was financially sustainable and the report indicated at paragraph 6.12 that officers accepted this point.

·        It was consistent with policies RA6 and E4.

·        It was in keeping with provisions with paragraphs 84 and 85 of the consultation draft for a revised National Policy Planning Framework.  Whilst carrying no planning weight at the moment this was indicative of government thinking.

·        The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) supported rural enterprise.  The report suggested the development was contrary to policy SD1 of the NDP.  However, the introduction to the NDP was supportive of sustainable development in the countryside.

·        Those residing on the site would face a road safety environment, for example in relation to crossing the A449, no different to that with which current residents had to cope.

·        People using such sites would not be unwilling to walk or cycle less than a mile that would bring them to the centre of the village.

·        The provision of overnight stays would boost economic development in the locality and further afield. 

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The environmental impact had to be balanced against the economic impact.  The scheme had the potential to be economically sustainable and of value to the county.

·        The proposal had the support of the majority of the local community.

·        The proposal represented sustainable development supporting the rural economy and tourism and the environment.

·        It was unsurprising that a development of this nature was outside the settlement boundary.

·        Moving the proposed access meant that there would be a minimal effect on the listed building in the vicinity.

·        The strength of the parish council’s opposition was questioned.

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on a grade 2 listed cottage, abutting its hedgerow.

·        A considerable length of hedgerow would have to be removed to create a safe access.

·        The principle of the scheme was sound but it was in the wrong place.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that consideration needed to be given to the impact on the listed building, the access (noting that part of the visibility splay was outside the applicant’s control), and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Proposed residential development of 5 dwellings, including the formation of a vehicular access, provision of an orchard and coppice strips, foul drainage treatment plants and other associated works.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed residential development of 5 dwellings, including the formation of a vehicular access, provision of an orchard and coppice strips, foul drainage treatment plants and other associated works.)

(Councillor WC Skelton had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Norman also left the meeting.)

The 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Hall of Almeley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Sue Powell, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Jones, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, there was the provision for the local ward member to speak on the application.  Councillor Skelton had had to leave the meeting.  Councillor Baker read a statement that he had been intending to deliver.

The statement contained the following principal comments:

·        Woonton was a small hamlet in the Ameley parish with 15 built residencies and 14 permissions recently granted. Whilst noting the absence of a five year housing land supply it was questioned what would represent proportionate growth.

·        There was strong local feeling against the application which had been developed without any reference to the neighbourhood development plan (NDP) working group or consultation with the community.  This was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·        The report stated that the Almeley NDP did not carry any weight for the purpose of decision making.   The NDP began regulation 16 consultation on June 27 2018.  Following local consultation the NDP had identified the proposed development sites in Ameley Parish and the application site was not one of them. In a matter of a few months the application would be refused as contrary to policy.

·        The view that no weight could be given to the NDP had been challenged.  There were also some concerns about the drainage issues.  A deferral was requested to permit these matters to be reviewed.

·        If the Committee was not minded to defer the matter the application could be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to a number of policies in the core strategy: HA2 and LD1.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The Lead Development Manager (LDM) clarified that the NDP commenced its Regulation 16 consultation on 27 June 2018.  It was a material consideration but had no weight in the planning balance.

With reference to housing approvals already granted in Woonton and what constituted proportionate growth, he also confirmed that the core strategy’s indicative minimum requirement for homes was calculated in relation to Almeley Parish as a whole.

·        In response to a question of the five year housing land supply the LDM confirmed that the calculation was produced annually and the supply as at April 2017 had been 4.54 years.  Information was being collated to produce the April 2018 calculation.

A request was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposed link single storey extension to the dwelling and detached single storey garage and store.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed link single storey extension to the dwelling and detached single storey garage and store.)

(Councillors Greenow, James, Norman and Powers and had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

Councillor WLS Bowen fulfilled the role of local ward member and in accordance with the council’s constitution, spoke on the application.

He outlined the proposal noting that there were no objections to the application and that it complied with policy.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Williams seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

INFORMATIVE:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Date of next site inspection – 17 July 2018

Date of next meeting – 18 July 2018 (tbc)