Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
RESOLVED – That the list of delegated decisions be noted.
An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Robert Ian Williams.
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 July 2026 were submitted. RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 July 2026 be signed as a correct record.
There were no declarations of personal interest.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a report (COEP/08/26) asking Members to determine the listed planning applications.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
The Officer presented the report and in doing so, displayed plans and photographs of the site to assist with his presentation. A discussion ensued and the following points were raised during the debate: · Concerns had been raised by the Community Council regarding the visual impact of the development and the potential loss of light to neighbouring properties. It was reported that the applicant had amended the proposal and was seeking to reduce the height of the fence to better reflect the boundary at the adjoining property. It was noted that planting was proposed around the wall and fence to soften its appearance. · Officers acknowledged that the proposal represented a significant change from the previous hedge boundary. However, given the elevated garden levels and the existing boundary treatments within the street, the development was not considered harmful from a design perspective. It was further reported that properties opposite were approximately 14 metres from the site and, as such, any loss of light was not considered significant. · Highways Officers had confirmed that the wall did not encroach onto the highway. It was also explained that separate approval would be required from the Highways Authority in respect of the structure itself and that it would not be appropriate to duplicate those requirements through a planning condition. A note would instead be attached to remind the applicant of their obligations under the relevant legislation. · A Member commented that the photographs demonstrated a number of properties within the street with high walls and fencing and proposed a site visit should be undertaken to allow Members to view the development in person. · Officers confirmed that the retaining wall brought the garden up to the same level as the adjoining land, and it was noted that planning permission was required as the structure exceeded the relevant height threshold adjacent to the highway. The fence was intended to provide privacy and security and this was considered reasonable when viewed alongside neighbouring properties. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the list of delegated decisions be noted.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a list of delegated decisions for the period 1 June 2026 – 30 June 2026. RESOLVED – That the list of delegated decisions be noted.
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.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.