To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor John Stone.

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

There were no named substitutes.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 2023.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 2023 be approved.

Proposed extension of Turnpike traveller site.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representation received following the publication of the agenda, as provided in the update sheet and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Pace, spoke on behalf of Pembridge and Shobdon parish councils, Mr Stokes, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Fry, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution, the local award member spoke on the application. He explained that the primary issues regarding the application concerned the highway safety and welfare of travellers, their children and the drivers of vehicles destined to local businesses. The proposed entrance to the site was on a road serving a busy industrial area and evidence was presented of the projected vehicle movements along the road on which the entrance was sited. It was projected that there would be over 600 vehicle movements per day on the road and that movements would continue into the night on the road where there was no lighting. There was concern that there had not been an adequate highway safety assessment due to the access road being located on private land. The applicant was urged reassess the site with a different layout and a single entrance to address concerns regarding the hazard post to residents on the site by the busy, unlit access road. The committee was urged to reject the application as it was in conflict with the core strategy and the Pembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

The committee debated the application. During consideration of the application the committee raised the following principal points:

- The location for the caravan site was in a suitable position;

- There was an advisory speed limit of 20 miles per hour on the road, but as it was a private road it was not possible to enforce the limit;

- The projected increase in the number of vehicles using the road was significant:

- There was an open space in close proximity to the road. The site would require adequate fencing and the maintenance of that fencing, to prevent open access to the road from the site; and

- The proximity of the road to the site posed serious highway safety concerns and a reassessment of the location of the access was urged.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained that objections to the application did not concern the principle of the site in its current location but the highway safety of local residents and drivers.

A motion that the application be refused due to highway safety concerns relating to the entrance to the site and the access road, contrary to core strategy policies TS1 (6), TS7 (8), MT1 and SD1, was proposed by Councillor Stef Simmons and seconded by councillor Richard Thomas. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – That:

The application be refused due to highway safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval. (160581 - Proposed site for the erection of 5 no. four bedroom dwellings).

Application deferred.

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 sheet and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Edwards spoke on behalf of Titley Group Parish Council, Ms Whitlock, spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Tompkins, the applicant's agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local award member spoke on the application, he explained that the application concerned the scale, layout and landscape of the proposed development. It was noted that the Titley NDP had acquired relevance following inspection by the planning inspectorate and was at a stage where it was to be presented for referendum. There was local concern regarding the design and scale of the proposed properties, in particular the proposed brickwork was not consistent with the local vernacular of stone. The height of the proposed buildings was a concern with the tallest standing at one meter higher than the existing agricultural structures on the site. Due to the design and scale of the buildings there was concern that the development would have an adverse impact upon the local landscape. It was felt that the application was in conflict with the Titley NDP policies TG5, TG13 and TG16.

The committee debated the application. During consideration of the application the committee raised the following principal points:

- The proposed red brick design was felt to be very suburban and unsympathetic to the local area;

- A deferral of the application would allow the applicant to produce a design which was more sympathetic to the locality;

- There was concern regarding the height of the buildings. The ridge heights were felt to be too high and suburban in nature; and

- The layout of the site should be reconsidered to utilise renewable sources of energy more efficiently.

The Local Ward Member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained that dialogue between the applicant, the local community and the parish council was necessary to take the application forward.

A motion the application is deferred to allow for a reassessment of the scale, design and layout of the proposed scheme was proposed by councillor Polly Andrews and seconded by Councillor Stef Simmons. The motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED – That:

The application is deferred to allow for a reassessment of the scale, design and layout of the proposed scheme.