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 REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee for the reason that Criterion 2 had been met.
Apologies for absence received from Councillors Viv Stoddart and Guy Woodham. Councillor David Simpson attended as a Reserve Member in place of Councillor Viv Stoddart for the meeting. Councillor Di Clements attending as a substitute for Councillor Steve Yelland for this meeting only.
Councillor Tessa Hodgson declared an interest in agenda item 3 by virtue of being the Local Member for Lamphey.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee for the reason that Criterion 2 had been met.
The Chair welcomed the Chief Planning Officer to the meeting to give a presentation on the item, who went on to outline the assessment against the three criteria for removing the application from the scheme of delegation. The Chief Planning Officer outlined the three criteria for referral to Planning Committee, confirming that the application did not meet any of them. He advised that the proposal would not impact beyond immediate neighbours, was neither complex nor sensitive, and presented no policy conflict. It was therefore recommended that the application remain within the scheme of delegation. The Local Member for Lamphey, Councillor Tessa Hodgson, was then invited to present reasons for the application to be removed from the scheme of delegation and referred to the Planning Committee. Councillor Hodgson explained her reasons for requesting referral, citing previous similar applications in Cosheston that were considered complex and sensitive. She argued that the current proposal raised comparable issues, meeting Criterion 2 due to the balance between community impact and provision of gypsy traveller pitches, and Criterion 3 due to potential policy conflicts between settlement boundaries and gypsy traveller site policies. Councillor Di Clements expressed concern about consistency between past and current decisions. In response the Chief Planning Officer explained that previous cases involved site-specific complexities, such as drainage and utility constraints, which did not apply to the application they were discussing. He noted that consistency over a decade is challenging and confirmed that the current proposal does not raise comparable issues. Councillor Tessa Hodgson emphasised that previous gypsy traveller applications in close proximity to the current site had been referred to Committee, including two at Broadford Lane and one at Mutton Hill. She noted that these decisions were taken under the same Local Development Plan and argued that consistency should be maintained. While acknowledging the Chief Planning Officer’s point regarding site-specific complexities in earlier cases, she considered the current proposal to raise similar issues and reiterated her view that Criterions 2 and 3 were met. Councillor David Simpson stated that he generally supported officer recommendations, recognising their expertise, but expressed hesitation in this case due to precedent. He noted that similar applications had previously been referred to Committee and found it difficult to reconcile the current approach with past decisions, despite acknowledging the Chief Planning Officer’s explanation. Councillor Huw Murphy expressed concern about the potential for refusal to lead to an appeal and costs against the Authority, noting past cases where objections were overturned. He highlighted the lack of authorised gypsy traveller pitches in the county and urged caution. The Chief Planning Officer advised that the Panel’s role was to consider whether referral was justified, not the merits of the application, and explained that objections may indicate sensitivity but do not automatically warrant referral. Following the Chief Planning Officer’s comments, Councillor Tessa Hodgson reiterated that the Panel was not considering the merits of the application but whether it met the threshold for referral based on complexity, sensitivity, or conflicting policies. She stressed that referral would allow full examination through the democratic process and noted that a petition with 178 signatures had been submitted, indicating significant community concern that could warrant further scrutiny by the Planning Committee. Councillor Phil Kidney supported referral to Planning Committee, stating that a full hearing would allow both the applicant and the community to present their views. He considered Criterion 2, relating to complexity and sensitivity, to be the most appropriate basis for referral and confirmed his intention to support the application being heard by Committee. The Chief Planning Officer welcomed the focus on Criterion 2, noting that referencing Criterion 3 could raise unnecessary issues regarding interpretation of Local Development Plan policies. He explained that while policies may appear to conflict, the LDP should be read as a whole, and gypsy traveller pitches are not unique in being permitted outside settlement boundaries. He acknowledged that members had considered the level of representation and confirmed that referral under Criterion 2 was within their discretion. Councillor Phil Kidney then Moved that the application be removed from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criterion 2 had been met; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. The vote to refer the application to the Planning Committee, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Phil Kidney, David Simpson and Vanessa Thomas [3] Against the Motion: Councillors Di Clements and Huw Murphy [2] Councillor Tessa Hodgson abstained from the vote. RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee for the reason that Criterion 2 had been met.
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.