Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the application REMAIN in the scheme of delegation to be considered by Officers.
RESOLVED That the application REMAIN in the scheme of delegation to be considered by Officers.
There were no declarations of interest made.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application REMAIN in the scheme of delegation to be considered by Officers.
The Chair welcomed the Chief Planning Officer to the meeting to give a presentation on planning item 24/0740/PA – Imperial Function Centre, Masonic Hall, Hamilton Terrace SA73 3JN – proposed engineering works to provide external dining area (in retrospect) to the Panel. The Chief Planning Officer explained that Criterion 1 had not been met. Whilst it had not been referred to in the request, officers were of the opinion that it would not impact on more than immediate residents or on another electoral division. Criterion 2 had not been referred to in the request. Officers considered that the issue under consideration I respect of this criterion is only the visual impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area. Officer opinion was that this criterion had not been met as it wasn’t complex or sensitive and would not benefit from a public examination of the merits. In respect of Criterion 3, the Member request refers to conflicting planning policy issues but identifies points from a previous officer evaluation of a scheme which the Member request disagrees with. The points raised express a difference in opinion and as such do not highlight any conflicting planning policy issues. Officers consider that the request does not meet Criterion 3. The Local Member was not in attendance at the meeting. The Panel then debated the contents of the presentation and the key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Mike Stoddart raised concerns regarding the validity of the application due to a prejudicial interest of the Local Member, Councillor Terry Davies and that Councillor Alan Dennison was noted as an Employee of the Imperial Hall on his Register of Interests and therefore had a prejudicial interest. The Head of Planning explained that Planning Officers had not received any Personal or Prejudicial Interests from Councillor Dennison noting that he was not employed by the Imperial Hall. She further clarified that, the Planning Code stated that if there were an issue with the Local Member such as personal circumstances that may prevent them from making the request, then there was the opportunity for the Group Leader to nominate a Member to make the request on their behalf. However, that procedure did not take place and the Local Member had contacted herself advising that there was a personal reason that they could not make the request and, with agreement of the Local Member, Councillor Dennison would make the request which had been accepted. Councillor Stoddart again highlighted that Councillor Dennison’s Register of Interests, published online, stated that he was an employee of the Imperial Hall. The Head of Planning again clarified that on Companies House, it is identified that Councillor Dennison resigned as a Director of Imperial Hall in August 2024 which precedes the referral request. She further advised that the matter had been confirmed with the Monitoring Officer who had advised that it was a matter for the Member to decide if they have a Personal or Prejudicial Interest and no declaration had been received. Councillor Phil Kidney highlighted that the application was no larger than a development down the road and felt it to be personal and would be of detriment to the area. Councillor Phil Kidney then Moved to refer the application to the Planning Committee for a full hearing to be undertaken. Councillor Tessa Hodgson emphasised that it was important that the Panel do not look at the merits of the application but at the three quite narrow criteria that is set out in the scheme of delegation. Councillor Tessa Hodgson then Moved that application remain within the scheme of delegation. Councillor Mel Phillips then Seconded the Motion that the application is referred to the Planning Committee as Moved by Councillor Kidney. Councillor Kidney then declared a Point of Order that his Motion would need to be voted on first. Councillor Stoddart then seconded the Motion moved by Councillor Hodgson but confirmed that Councillor Phillips had seconded Councillor Kidney’s motion. The Chair advised that they take a vote for or against the Motion to refer the application to Planning Committee and if that failed then it would remain within the scheme of delegation. The Chair then noted that Councillor Dennison was in the public gallery and asked him if he wanted to speak on the item which he declined. Councillor Hodgson then raised a Point of Order that it had been inappropriate for Councillor Dennison to speak from the gallery but the Chair highlighted that he had asked Councillor Dennison. It was noted that Councillor Dennison had not indicated or requested to address the Panel. Councillor Kidney then clarified that he was quoting Criterion 2 in support of his recommendation. The Chair then clarified that the vote would be undertaken on referring the application to the Planning Committee. The vote to refer the Application to the Planning Committee for determination, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Claire George, Phil Kidney and Mel Phillips.[3] Against the Motion: Councillors Tessa Hodgson, Mike Stoddart and Guy Woodham.[3] There were no abstentions. The Chair, Councillor Guy Woodham, used his casting vote against the Motion. RESOLVED That the application REMAIN in the scheme of delegation to be considered by Officers.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application REMAIN in the scheme of delegation to be considered by Officers.
The Chair welcomed the Senior Planning Officer to the meeting to give a presentation on planning application 24/0928/PA – Land adjacent to the Green, High Street, St Florence SA70 8LN – residential development of six dwellings with associated landscaping and access to the Panel. The Local Member for St Florence and St Mary out Liberty, Councillor Rhys Jordan then presented the reasons for the application to be removed from the scheme of delegation and referred to the Planning Committee. Councillor Jordan explained that the development would adversely impact beyond immediate neighbours (Criterion 1) as it would fundamentally alter the character of the St Florence Conservation Area. He advised that the scale and nature of the changes extended well beyond the immediate neighbours affecting the broader visual and environmental setting of the village. He emphasised that, given the sensitivity of the site, a full public examination at Planning Committee was warranted. Councillor Jordan further highlighted the finely balanced and sensitive decision affecting the local community (Criterion 2) noting the competing and complex planning considerations which could not be adequately addressed through delegated powers. He further noted that the development of five large four-bedroom houses and one single bungalow did not meet the local need for genuinely affordable homes. Councillor Jordan lastly explained the conflicting planning policy issues (Criterion 3) that significant tensions were raised between key planning policies namely GN.26 (Residential Density) and GN.2 (Sustainable Design). He highlighted that where different policies pull in different directions, it should be for the Planning Committee to determine which should take precedence. Councillor Claire George then Moved that the application be removed from the scheme of delegation on the grounds of meeting Criterion 2, highlighting that public scrutiny of some applications was paramount and residents are asked for their opinions which are rarely heard; Seconded by Councillor Phil Kidney. Councillor Tessa Hodgson thanked the Member for their presentation but did not feel that the three Criteria had been met and did not support its removal from the scheme of delegation. Councillor Mike Stoddart emphasised that concerns of the residents were not part of the criteria. Very few applications were brought before the Planning Delegation Panel and that Members need to appreciate that Officers are fully capable of determining applications. Councillor Claire George requested a point of clarity as it was her first time on the Panel and Criterion 2, Finely Balanced and Sensitive Decision affecting the local community was included. She therefore felt that it did accord with the criteria and that it should be given the opportunity for a public debate. The vote to refer the Application to the Planning Committee for determination, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Claire George and Phil Kidney [2]. Against the Motion: Councillors Tessa Hodgson, Mel Phillips, Mike Stoddart and Guy Woodham [4]. There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application REMAIN in the scheme of delegation to be considered by Officers.
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.