Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve the application on receipt of amended plans for a hipped roof over the flat roofed side extension, following publicity and consideration of any further representations.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED (a) That the existing Section 52 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the dwelling to be tied to the land in agriculture at Upper Hayscastle Farm and for the dwelling to be occupied by a person solely or mainly employed before retirement in agriculture. (b) That, in the event that the deed of discharge is not completed within three months of the foregoing recommendation then delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application.
The Chair delivered the following announcements: Application 25/0202/PA – Langdon Mill Farm was considered by the December 2025 Committee where there was a resolution to approve subject to delegated power be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following final approval of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and subject to a number of conditions. Following completion of the HRA the approval was issued on 5/02/26.
There were no declarations of interest made.
Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; 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 13 January 2026 be approved as a correct record, subject to the Chair’s announcements.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve the application on receipt of amended plans for a hipped roof over the flat roofed side extension, following publicity and consideration of any further representations.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was contrary to a policy of the development plan but was being recommended for approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The application was deferred at Planning Committee on 13 January 2026 pending a site inspection undertaken on 4 February 2026. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested parties who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: Andrew Vaughan-Harries – Agent Jessica Clarke – Objector The Agent advised that there was a Civil Matter which Members may not have fully understood. Notice under Certificate B had been served on the neighbour in respect of a gutter overhang which may have extended over their land. This raised a question in relation to the land ownership of 20 Hamilton Terrace. He highlighted the design and that dialogue had been undertaken with the Planning Department and the Conservation Officer. It was noted that the design had been altered to include an improved pitch roof which does not cause any amenity issues. The Agent suggested a hipped roof to the building which would still achieve the accommodation but reduce the impact. However, there had not been any consultation with the Planning Department or the Objectors. In conclusion, the Agent noted that the recommendation was to approve and welcomed this. The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. In response to a question raised by Councillor Tim Evans regarding whether any other consents were required if planning permission was granted and the property became a house of multiple occupancy, the Agent advised that there were a number of procedures including party wall legislation, discharge of planning conditions and housing department guidance on making the accommodation fit for purpose. In response to a question raised by Councillor John Cole, regarding the windows in the side elevation of the proposal, which would cause a loss of amenity, the Agent advised the Committee that the windows were currently in place and that they had offered to provide obscured glazing. Councillor Cole noted that the neighbour would be looking at a wall. The Agent acknowledged this and noted the significance pointing out that there were areas to enjoy the garden. He stated that the whole area was enclosed by a lot of development of multiple storeys however, the impact was not deemed significant by the Head of Planning. Councillor Cole noted that the proposal would still be affecting the occupants of No. 19 which must be considered. The Agent reiterated the error he had identified on the land registry plan and that terraced properties have overlooking windows. He highlighted the benefits to saving the building and providing occupation. In response to a further question raised by Councillor John Cole regarding whether the occupants at no. 19 would have to agree to the land registry anomaly, the Agent advised that the provisions of the Party Wall Act were a civil tool to allow neighbours to reach an agreement. The roof was failing and the party wall would need corrective work. The Chair then invited the Objector to address the Committee. The Objector highlighted that adding an additional storey and pitched roof would be detrimental and asked the Committee to not allow the additional storey. She highlighted the impact of the renovation of the property and potential of damage to the property. It was hoped that the scaffolding etc would be dealt with via a party wall agreement. The application has caused a great deal of anxiety, not against development, but due to the nature of the property. In response to a further question raised by Councillor John Cole regarding the extension overhanging the dog leg the Objector noted that their only request was to keep the property at its existing height. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application In response to a question raised by Councillor Cole regarding the objections having been dismissed by the Case Officer, the Chief Planning Officer advised that when the application was publicised, there were 21 days to object and the Officer then reviewed any responses and assessed the objections. It was noted during the site visit that the rear elevation of the property faced North with no overshadowing. Members were advised that in the Officers view, the extent of the lifting of the walls above the flat roof and inclusion of a ridged roof, the distance from the rear elevation of the property and the windows served did not represent a significant detrimental impact on amenity. Councillor Dennison sought clarification on any other developments involving change of use from commercial to residential on the ground floor within Hamilton Terrace and could this application be seen as setting a precedent. The Chief Planning Officer advised that this development would not set a precedent, a previous application on Hamilton Terrace for change of use of a ground floor of a commercial property to residential use was contrary to policy but had been approved as Council had adopted an interim planning policy supporting such proposals. In that case, the interim policy was considered to be a material consideration sufficient to outweigh the planning policy conflict. There was a precedent set, however, each application was considered on its own merit. The Chair noted that this was a difficult application to determine which was recommended for Approval. He noted that there was a further option available to the Committee, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning due to concerns raised regarding the flat roof being replaced by a ridged roof. The Chief Planning Officer advised that inclusion of the agent’s suggested amendment of using a hipped roof, would require formal submission of the amendment, publication and consideration of any representations received to then determine the application accordingly. In response to a concern raised by Councillor John Cole regarding if the application was approved today, with the civil matter relating to the flat roof area, when are building works allowed to commence. The Chief Planning Officer noted that this would be dependent on the planning conditions and there were no conditions not allowing this. Councillor John Cole then Moved that the application be deferred due to the anxiety caused by the ridged roof. The Chief Planning Officer noted that there were no legal matters from a planning perspective and it would therefore not be appropriate to defer for this reason. Councillor John Cole then Moved that the application be refused due to the adverse health impact on the objector. The Chief Planning Officer explained that an impact on a persons well being would be considered but would not necessarily merit a refusal. The impact would need to be assessed in relation to the public interest and not private interests. This assessment had been undertaken and was deemed as acceptable. The Chief Planning Officer noted that a ridged roof would be in keeping with the property as would a hipped roof. The Chair highlighted the two options available to the Committee, that the application can be determined today or that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve the application on receipt of amended plans for a hipped roof over the flat roofed side extension, following publicity and consideration of any further representations. The Chair then Moved that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve the application on receipt of amended plans for a hipped roof over the flat roofed side extension, following publicity and consideration of any further representations; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. Councillor Neumann agreed the amendment as reasonable. An alternative had been proposed by the Agent which would help alleviate some of the concerns. There was empathy for the objectors and he supported the amendment to delegated authority to the Head of Planning. Councillor Alderman highlighted that the property was dilapidated, and any deferment would increase the party wall dilapidation and supported the delegation of authority to the Head of Planning. Councillor John Davies also supported the deferment to allow delegated powers to the Head of Planning to lessen the impact on the objector through a redesign of the roof. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that one option was to defer the application for an amended plan to be received and to refer to the Committee for consideration. The second option was to delegate authority to the Head of Planning which would require the amended plan to be publicised and consideration of any further representations. The application would not return to the Committee for consideration. This option had been Moved and Seconded. Councillor Hancock supported delegated authority noting this was a Grade 2 listed building in a conservation area. This was a balance that would be faced in all town centres. Councillor Michael Williams noted that if Members were unhappy with the proposed design, then the application should be refused as it stands and then the agent could submit an amended application. Councillor Williams voiced concerns that Members should not dismiss the concerns of the objector. The Chair acknowledged the empathy towards the objectors but noted the Committee had strict planning considerations that must be adhered to. Councillor Alderman Moved to approve the application without an amended roof design due to the condition of the building concerned. The Solicitor advised that there was a proposal that had been moved and seconded which must be voted on before any further discussion on a new proposal. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve the application on receipt of amended plans for a hipped roof over the flat roofed side extension, following publicity and consideration of any further representations.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for committee consideration as it involved a full planning application for agricultural buildings in excess of 1,000 sq.m in area and on a site in excess of 1.0 ha (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and gave a verbal update that following submission of the report, the Council Landscape Officer had provided a no objection response subject to imposition of a lighting condition which was shown in paragraph 1.1. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: Gethin Beynon – Agent The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Iwan Ward regarding Solar energy, the Agent advised that there were plans at this time. In response to a question raised by Councillor Nick Neumann regarding any increase in cattle and their current housing, the Agent advised that there would not be any increase in numbers and that the cattle were currently in old buildings which fell short of the current standards and genetic changes in the breed of cows require additional space. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application. Councillor John Davies highlighted the economic and environmental value of these developments. Councillor Alan Dennison then Moved the application; seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the existing Section 52 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the dwelling to be tied to the land in agriculture at Upper Hayscastle Farm and for the dwelling to be occupied by a person solely or mainly employed before retirement in agriculture. (b) That, in the event that the deed of discharge is not completed within three months of the foregoing recommendation then delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application.
The application was presented for committee consideration as the application sought to discharge a Section 52 agreement that was entered into in respect of application reference D2/88/1551. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that some of the documentation referred to Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act which had replaced Section 52 of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. There were no public speakers on this item of business. The Committee did not raise any questions to the Planning Officer. Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor John Cole The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the existing Section 52 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the dwelling to be tied to the land in agriculture at Upper Hayscastle Farm and for the dwelling to be occupied by a person solely or mainly employed before retirement in agriculture. (b) That, in the event that the deed of discharge is not completed within three months of the foregoing recommendation then delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application.
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.