Apologies were received from Councillors EL Holton, TM James and WC Skelton.

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

None.

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 receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Proposed extension and expansion of existing B1 facility comprising:

1) change of use of grain store to new production facility

2) extension to provide additional office space and research and development facilities

3) additional car parking provision

4) production waters treatment plant

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

(Proposed extension and expansion of existing B1 facility comprising of: 1) change of use of grain store to new production facility, 2) extension to provide additional office space and research and development facilities, 3) additional car parking provision, and 4) production waters treatment plant.)

The Principal 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, C Rusby, of Upton Bishop Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Rusby, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Lambe, the applicant, and Mrs V Simpson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant’s company was ethical, well-run, contributed to economic prosperity and he supported its expansion.  He agreed with the comments of the cabinet member – economy and communications supporting the application as set out in the schedule of updates.

·        The local community wanted the company to prosper.  However, there was concern about the volume and weight of traffic the proposal would generate and the highway impact on the U70004.  He highlighted the provisions of policy MT1 (1). He referred to differences of opinion over road usage statistics between the applicant and objectors.  The C1286 servicing the site was marked unsuitable for HGVs.

·        Paragraph 6.24 of the report referred to the requirement that the applicant produce a travel plan and the requirement that passing bays be created.  A draft travel plan had been produced but had not been progressed since October 2018 and no detail had been agreed on proposed passing places. Although there was good communication between the applicant and the community, the production of this document and consultation on it with the local community would quite possibly have led to an acceptable outcome. 

·        There was a concern as to whether passing places would be in keeping with the area which was in the open countryside.

·        It had to be born in mind that the U70004 was also used by large farm vehicles.

·        Objectors supported the business but wanted measures to control traffic levels.  A travel plan was therefore required to ensure mitigation was provided.

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

·        Reference was made to the provisions of policy RA6 that development should not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of nearby residents by virtue of design and mass, noise, dust, lighting and smell; and should not generate traffic movements that cannot safely be accommodated within the local road network.

Potential traffic and noise nuisance were identified as the key issues.  Several members commented on the importance of a travel plan being in place.  It was proposed that officers should be authorised to grant permission subject to an acceptable travel plan and assurance that noise levels  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Outline planning application for 9 proposed dwellings with all matters reserved except access and layout.

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

(Outline planning application for 9 proposed dwellings with all matters reserved except access and layout.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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.

An appeal decision dismissing an appeal against refusal of permission, as referred to at paragraph 3.1 of the report, had been previously circulated as a supplement to the agenda papers.

With reference to a road traffic accident resulting in a death adjoining the site referred to in the update the PPO clarified, in response to a question, that this had occurred in a nearby layby.  He commented that the Highways team had been mindful of this in its assessment alongside the other highway considerations.  One of the mitigation measures proposed was the closure of the layby.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Reeves of Linton Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  C Reeve, 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 made the following principal comments:

·        He referred to the comments of Gorsley and Kilcot Parish Council, a neighbouring Parish, reiterated in the schedule of updates, quoting its concerns about highway safety (page8/9 of the update paragraphs 6 (“We believe…) to 10 “In June 2014…”).

·        He also referred to the appeal decision dismissing an appeal in relation to a previous application on the site on highway safety grounds and significant harm and impact on the character and appearance of the area.  He quoted paragraphs 16 and 17 of the decision letter in relation to footway widths in the context of highway safety.

·        He could see no reason for supporting the application in view of the objections expressed.

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

·        Account should be taken of the dismissal of the appeal in relation to a previous application on highway safety grounds.  The Transportation Manager at paragraph 4.4 of the report did not robustly state that he had no objection.

·        There were significant concerns about pedestrian safety in seeking to access facilities, noting the narrowness of the footways and the road.

·        The proposal should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SS4 and MT1.

·        Traffic speed was a significant issue.  If approved, a reduction in the speed limit would not be sufficient.  Additional traffic management measures would be needed. 

·        Noting the Planning Inspector’s comments about impact on the character of the area a smaller development might be considered preferable, although this would not address the highway safety concerns.

·        Development of the site would be compliant with policy RA2.  The site was suitable for development if appropriate traffic management measures were taken.  The stretch of road by the site did not have a significant history of traffic accidents.

·        Reference was made to the representations from Linton Parish Council at paragraph  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Retention of residential use of former converted carport for ancillary accommodation and retention of the non-material conversion works required to be reversed by enforcement notice EN2017/002562/ZZ.

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

(Retention of residential use of former converted carport for ancillary accommodation and retention of the non-material conversion works required to be reversed by enforcement notice EN2017/002562/ZZ.)

(Councillors Lloyd-Hayes and Norman had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Hardwick fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

It was noted that the application had been considered by the Committee on 25 July 2018 when the Committee had declined to determine it.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Lloyd, of Dormington and Mordiford Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr A Allen, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr E Wilson, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant had a history of ignoring planning law requirements over some 10 years by making alterations to the annex, resulting in the current situation.

·        The local community had not objected retrospectively to the initial conversion to an annex, without planning permission, because of sympathy for the applicant’s unfortunate personal circumstances.  However, the current additional development had represented a step too far. 

·        The parking and delivery arrangements had caused problems over the past 2 years. Even though the report suggested that the proposed solution to the parking issues would be effective the evidence of the past two years proved that it would be unsustainable and unworkable. He noted that 21A had been vacant in recent months masking the extent of the problems.

·        He considered the application should be refused.  The proposal was detrimental to neighbouring residents and contrary to policy SD1.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application there was consensus that the application would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents.  Some delivery vehicles had also had to reverse onto the highway because of lack of turning space. An alternative was to reverse in but this was also dangerous. The proposal should therefore be refused on the grounds it was contrary to policies SD1 and MT1 and contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF.

The Lead Development Manager indicated that he considered determination of the application to be the right course and that the grounds for refusal were sound.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comments.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SD1 and MT1 and paragraph 124 of the NPPF.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, none against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies SD1 and MT1 and paragraph 124 of the NPPF.

Proposed garage.

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

(Proposed garage.)

(Councillors Lloyd-Hayes and Norman had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

Councillor WLS Bowen had fulfilled the role of local ward member for this application and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution spoke upon it.  He expressed support for the application, noting that it complied with the Neighbourhood Development Plan and there were no objections to it.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Baker 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 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         F07 Domestic use only of garage

4.         Ecological mitigation (2 bat boxes and 2 bird boxes)

5.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

INFORMATIVES:

1.         Application Approved Without Amendment

Date of next site inspection – 12 February 2019

Date of next meeting – 13 February 2019

The committee noted the date of the next meeting.