Apologies were received from Councillor Graham Andrews.

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

Councillor Bowen substituted for Councillor Graham Andrews.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

None.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2020.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2020 be approved.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Proposed erection of seven dwellings with garages and associated development.

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

(Proposed erection of seven dwellings with garages and associated development.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mr J Hughes of Yarkhill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the proposal as a virtual attendee.  Mr R Durnan, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application as a virtual attendee.  Mr O Fry, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application as a virtual attendee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Lester, spoke on the application.  In summary, he expressed particular concern about the impact on the landscape, on existing residents and flooding issues.  He considered the proposal was contrary to policies in the Core Strategy, paragraphs 155 and 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Yarkhill Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Development Manager commented that the site was identified as suitable for development in policy RA2 and within the settlement boundary.  He acknowledged that the Committee had identified concerns about the nature of the particular development in terms of design, land drainage and landscape impact.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the proposal.

A motion was proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development was contrary to policies SS1, in terms of design, SS4, SS6, LD1, LD4, SD3, paragraphs 155 and 163 of the NPPF and policies 2,7,8,9 and 11 of the Yarkhill NDP and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee.

(The meeting adjourned between 12:00 and 12:10pm)

1) Change of use of the barn from agricultural to office space.  Works undertaken include replacement beams and glazing to open north gable end of barn.  2) Formalise an historic change of use from riding arena to car park - works included tarmacking the arena.  3) Access road. (all works retrospective).

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

(1) change of use of the barn from agricultural to office space.  Works undertaken include replacement beams and glazing to open north gable end of barn.  2) formalise an historic change of use from riding arena to car park - works included tarmacking the arena.  3) access road. (all works retrospective).)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mrs J Bromley of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the proposal as a virtual attendee.  Mrs L Kershaw a local resident, spoke in objection to the application as a virtual attendee.  Mr J Evans, the applicant submitted a recorded statement.  This was played to the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Shaw, spoke on the application.  In summary, in relation to the works to the building he stated that if the application were to be approved there should be an additional condition requiring the use of appropriate blinds or curtains after nightfall.  In relation to the car park if the committee were minded to approve the application he proposed additional conditions requiring the car park to be vacated one hour after the permitted time for amplified music at the venue, that cars be parked facing away from the valley to reduce light pollution issues and the wording of condition 15 from the original permission governing the loading and unloading of service vehicles be applied.  He also requested a condition requiring mitigation to reduce the noise from cattle grids on the road serving the venue.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Development Manager commented that the application needed to be dealt with on its own merits and separately from the subsequent application on the agenda papers relating to the property (194408).  Additional conditions could be considered as proposed if the Committee considered them appropriate.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his request for additional conditions.

It was proposed that the application should be approved with the additional conditions requiring the car park to be vacated one hour after the permitted time for amplified music at the venue, that cars be parked facing away from the valley to reduce light pollution issues and condition 15 from the original permission governing the loading and unloading of service vehicles along with a condition requiring mitigation to reduce the noise from cattle grids on the road serving the venue (to include hedgehog ramps).

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions below, with additional conditions  requiring the car park to be vacated one hour after the permitted time for amplified music at the venue, that cars be parked facing away from the valley to reduce light pollution issues, condition 15 from the original permission governing the loading and unloading of service vehicles along  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Proposed removal of condition 4 and variation of condition 16 of planning permission P163902/f (demolition of 5no. existing redundant agricultural outbuildings to facilitate expansion of existing restaurant and following events facilities: function suite, fine dining restaurant and lounge, conference space and 16no. Accommodation suites).

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

(Proposed removal of condition 4 and variation of condition 16 of planning permission p163902/f (demolition of 5no. Existing redundant agricultural outbuildings to facilitate expansion of existing restaurant and following events facilities: function suite, fine dining restaurant and lounge, conference space and 16no. accommodation suites)).

(Councillor Bowen indicated that he had not been present for the entire discussion.  Accordingly he had no right to vote)

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.

The update included counsel’s advice on behalf of the applicant.  Representations from local residents objecting to the application including legal opinion were also included.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mrs J Bromley of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the proposal as a virtual attendee.  Mrs L Kershaw a local resident, spoke in objection to the application as a virtual attendee.  Mr B Greenaway, the applicant’s agent submitted a recorded statement.  This was played to the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Shaw, spoke on the application.  He expressed detailed reservations.  In summary, he highlighted the concern of local residents about the adverse effect on local amenity. He questioned the assertion that there was no difference between the impact on amenity of conferences and weddings.  He noted that there had been no reference to weddings in the original application.  He considered that a condition restricting the use of the function room was reasonable.  He referenced the legal opinions on the application included in the schedule of updates.  If the Committee was minded to approve the application any permission should be temporary to allow the impact to be assessed.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Development Manager commented that a principal consideration was the balance between residential amenity and the continued economic viability of the business.  If the Committee were minded to refuse the application paragraph 180 of the NPPF would appear to be one ground for refusal.  He subsequently sought and received clarification that the Committee was minded to refuse the application on grounds of both amenity and highway safety

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that, whilst a difficult decision, on balance he considered refusal would be the correct course.  The applicant could submit an application that was more limited in scope, mindful of local concerns.  He noted also the suggestion that consideration be given to the use of acoustic rather than amplified music.  He supported policies RA6 and SD1 as grounds for refusal along with policy MT1 given concerns about highway safety.

A motion that the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendation, on the basis of policies RA6, SD1 and MT1 and paragraphs 109 and 180 of the NPPF was carried.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development was contrary to policies RA6, SD1 and MT1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Erection of two dwellings and associated works including the demolition of the piggery building.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application.

(Erection of two dwellings and associated works including the demolition of the piggery building.)

(Councillors Paul Andrews, James and Millmore left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mr N Moore of Llangarron Parish Council spoke in opposition to the proposal as a virtual attendee.  Mr C Caligari a local resident, spoke in objection to the application as a virtual attendee.  Mr M Tompkins, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application as a virtual attendee.  .

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Swinglehurst, spoke on the application.  She commented that in principle the site was suitable for development.  The Committee had recently approved other applications adjacent to it.  The site was adjacent to and within the settlement of Llangarron and within the settlement boundary in the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan.  However, consideration needed to be given to cumulative impact on highway safety.  The size of the proposed dwellings was relevant in this context but did not form part of an outline application, along with housing need in the area that was also a relevant consideration.  She also expressed concerns about the drainage arrangements.

It was proposed that the application should be deferred and further detail sought.

The Development Manager commented there were sometimes circumstances where officers sought a full application, rather than an outline application, to assist in determining the matter.  However, he considered that in this case it was appropriate for the Committee to determine the outline application.

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

Date of next site inspection – 1 December 2020

Date of next meeting – 2 December 2020

Noted.