Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 Apologies were received by Councillor Stuart Ashley.
2.1 There were no interest declared.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 17th December 2025 were confirmed as a true and accurate record.
4.1 4.1 The Team Leader (Planning Applications) presented the report including plans and photos to Members making the following comments: • The committee had previously considered a similar proposal. The first application was refused. The applicant appealed to second application on non‑determination grounds with members indicating, if they had the opportunity, they would have also refused this application.. • The site is an undulating greenfield area with steep gradients, access was proposed via Rosemead which would require the relocation of a streetlight. • The new scheme was broadly similar to the previous applications for the site except for the removal of two houses that were of concern to the Planning Inspector (due to the adverse impact on the setting of a listed barn). These plots (9 and 10) are omitted from the current proposal. • The proposed layout still includes retaining walls, tiered gardens, public open‑space links, and the continuation of an existing public right of way through the site. • The development would consist of a mix of one‑bedroom flats, three‑bedroom houses, and four‑bedroom houses with associated parking and driveways. • Engineering elements such as SUDS drainage principles and retaining features remained largely unchanged and were presented at a conceptual but acceptable level for the planning authority. • The public right of way would have to be formally diverted, with several possible diversion options under consideration; this would require a separate consent process and public consultation. • Late representations were received from ward councillors and they highlighted the long‑standing community objections to further development above Rosemead, reflecting previous council decisions not to develop higher up the mountainside. • Objectors had questioned why the recommendation had changed, arguing that the site remained unsuitable due to steep gradients, engineered interventions, inadequate garden space, and incompatibility with local character. The appeal decision in Appendix A was a key material consideration, the Planning Inspector found scale, traffic, and drainage impacts acceptable and dismissed the previous appeal solely due to harm caused to the listed building by Plots 9 and 10. The removal of those two plots in the revised scheme were considered to address the Inspector’s primary concern regarding the listed building’s setting. • A viability assessment had been submitted and independently reviewed, showing the development could not viably provide policy‑compliant affordable housing or Section 106 contributions. • The viability findings aligned with RICS best‑practice methods and the Council’s own development viability model, confirming profit margins remained below the industry‑standard 20% viability threshold. • Under Policy S8 of the Local Development Plan, viability was a legitimate factor in determining planning obligations, and the report concluded that the scheme was unable to meet those obligations. 4.2 In response to comments and questions by Members of the Planning Committee, the Team Leader (Planning Applications) gave the following responses: • The primary flooding concerns related to surface water would be addressed through the statutory Sustainable Drainage Approval Body (SAB) process. The Planning Inspector had previously reviewed this matter and found that the broad principles for effective surface‑water management could be achieved. Detailed drainage mitigation would be developed and secured through the SAB regulatory process. • The Planning Inspector’s decision identified Plots 9 and 10 as the specific source of harm to the listed building, and their removal was considered to resolve that issue. Although the wider development would still have some impact on the setting, the Inspector found this acceptable overall. • The turning head was part of the adopted highway and was intended for vehicle movement rather than parking. The Highways Officer raised no objections to the proposed access arrangements, and the Inspector also found matters relating to parking and access acceptable. • Members were reminded that revisiting issues already assessed and accepted by the Planning Inspector could expose the planning authority to claims of unreasonable behaviour. • The Planning Inspector had visited the site and had considered its steep gradient and walking routes and concluded that neither the topography nor the distances to public transport rendered the site unsustainable. The scheme included a pedestrian link to the nearest bus stop, and the Inspector found the location to meet required sustainability criteria. Officers advised that, while members may disagree, overturning matters already deemed acceptable by the Inspector could expose the authority to a risk of unreasonable‑behaviour costs at appeal. • Welsh Water had confirmed foul drainage capacity but had raised a new issue regarding potable water pressure, which would be controlled through a pre‑commencement condition requiring satisfactory modelling and agreement before any works could begin. Surface‑water drainage matters were also addressed, and the Planning Inspector previously reviewed these issues and was satisfied that appropriate drainage arrangements could be achieved. Detailed surface‑water design would be secured through the SAB process, which must be complied with alongside planning permission before development could start. • Officers recommended a condition to reduce the commencement period from five years to two years due to viability considerations, and requiring a further viability review after the first five houses were built to reassess costs, sales values, and the potential for any Section 106 contributions. These measures reflected the Inspector’s findings and would ensure key drainage and viability concerns were addressed before substantive development proceeds. 4.3 Members unanimously agreed that upon completion of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act concerning the matters referred to in the report, the Group Leader (Development Management) be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions laid out in the report or any amendments additions or deletions of the conditions he may deem necessary.
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.