Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 5 October 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2022 were differed to the next meeting for approval.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

All Councillors present declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) but reported that, as their interest was a personal interest they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(All Councillors present declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that members of the Chopping family and Mr John Cornwell (Agent) were known to them. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/01062/FULD in respect of the conversion and extension of an existing outbuilding to form a single dwelling.

Mr Matthew Shepherd (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the item and highlighted the key points in the report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Cornwell, Agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representations:

Mr Cornwell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That the core point of Policy C4 was to ensure that there were no adverse effects on the surrounding countryside and because the property was not visible to the public there would be no visual impact on the environment. This application could be considered as an exception to policy because the development would be hidden from public view.

·         The original plans needed to be altered so they could facilitate a home office, which was seen as a necessity due to the increased need to work from home.

·         That the addition of glazed windows would allow the original elevation to remain in view.

·         The original planning approval removed the Permitted Development Rights, therefore the plan had to be changed to add the extension.

Members Questions to the Applicant/Agent:

Councillor Keith Woodhams wanted to understand why the hidden nature of the property equated to there being no environmental impact. Mr Cornwell replied that the policy’s aim was to stop new developments having a negative impact on the area and that if the building was on the roadside it would have a detrimental visual effect on the environment, however because it was hidden this would not be the case.

Councillor Woodhams asked whether the applicant had taken advantage of the pre-application service, to which Mr Cornwell responded that he had tried to have discussions with the Planning Team after the last Committee, but had little to no response from Officers. 

Members Questions to the Officers:

Councillor Macro expressed concern over the lack of response from consultees on the application and wanted to know whether there was a particular reason for this. Mr Shepherd explained that there was an error in the report and that it should have stated that the Ecologist had no objections subject to the provided conditions and that there was nothing else the other Officers would have deemed necessary to comment on.

Debate:

Councillor Graham Pask reminded the Committee that they could interpret policy within good reason, which would not set a precedent in the future.

Councillor Woodhams quoted several elements from the report. Firstly, on page nine, paragraph 5.6, it stated that the new plans failed to comply with criterion one of Policy C4, which explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.(1)