Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and the amendment made by the oral update given by the Case Officer.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Councillor Dr Simon Hancock opened the meeting and made the following announcements: · Item 24/0063/PA – Plot 4, Kiln Park, Burton Ferry had been withdrawn from today’s agenda and will be considered at the July Planning Meeting. · Following the notice of a legal challenge that was received on 8 February 2024 by Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group (SPVRG) Ltd and reported at the Planning Committee meeting of 13th February 2024 in respect of Planning application Reference 20/0462/PA approved by Full Council on 10th November 2023 for holiday lodges etc at Heritage Park, Stepaside, the application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court Judge on 31st May 2024. The Judge considered that the grounds put forward by the Claimant were not considered to be reasonably arguable. The Council has made a request to SPVRG for payment of costs incurred in defending the claim made by SPVRG. · Congratulations to Sam Pitchford, Solicitor on his recent achievement of Lawyers in Local Government, Junior Lawyer of the Year Award.
Item 7: Planning Application No. 24/0056/PA – Portfield Special School. Councillor Tim Evans declared a Personal Interest in the above item by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor of Portfield School.
Moved by Councillor Dr Simon Hancock ; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 May 2024 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh.
The above item was withdrawn from the meeting and would be considered at the July Planning Meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved the development of a Class D1 Institution of over 500sqm floorspace (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Chief Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and who then proceeded to discuss the application with the key points highlighted as follows: · In response to a concern raised by Councillor Iwan Ward regarding solar panels to be included in the development, the Chief Planning Officer advised that consideration was given to ongoing costs of maintenance as part of the development proposal and noted that renewable energy was included noting the south elevation of the building as an ideal location. · Councillor Tim Evans highlighted that the Council had supported the funding increase to allow this redevelopment on 9 May 2024 which addressed the poor condition of some of the school buildings. He further noted that this would increase the provision for children from almost every ward in the Authority. Councillor Tim Evans then moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, John Cole, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Dr Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Michael Williams [13] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and the amendment made by the oral update given by the Case Officer.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) and consent under Section 73 represented a new planning permission which raised issues regarding conflict with the development plan (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee with an oral update that the relevant conditions be updated to include revised foul and surface water conditions. The Committee then proceeded to discuss the application with the main point raised as follows: Councillor Rhys Jordan sought clarification that the number of dwellings had not reduced from the previous approval and the Planning Officer advised that there had been no reduction to the number of dwellings and the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that it remained at 112 dwellings. Councillor Tony Wilcox then Moved the recommendation as updated by the Planning Officer; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, John Cole, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Dr Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Michael Williams [13] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and the amendment made by the oral update given by the Case Officer.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration because it was for development contrary to the Development Plan which is being recommended for approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee who then proceeded to discuss the application with the main points highlighted as follows: Councillor Steve Alderman raised concerns that the dwelling was under an agricultural occupancy condition and the Chief Planning Officer advised that the condition was noted in the report. He advised that where a certificate of lawfulness was in place the applicant would not need to make the application to remove the condition in order for the occupation of the dwelling to continue in breach of the condition. If the property was subsequently occupied in accordance with the condition the value would be reduced by between 30 and 40%. The potential loss of value would make it highly unlikely that the property would be occupied in accordance with the condition in the future. As a certificate of lawfulness was in place it was considered that the applicant should not need to go through a marketing process to demonstrate that the condition was no longer needed. He highlighted that the certificate of lawfulness was granted on evidence and that this form of application was not common.. Councillor Alderman thanked the Chief Planning Officer for the explanation of how the process had progressed. Councillor Brian Hall then Moved the Recommendation for Approval; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, John Cole, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Dr Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Michael Williams [13] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.