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 recommendation of the Chief Officer Economy and Planning as set out in report (COPR/03/23)
RESOLVED – That permission be REFUSED
RESOLVED - That permission be GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief Officer Economy and Planning as set out in report (COPEP/03/23)
RESOLVED – That the list of Delegated Decisions be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Andy Williams
The Minutes of the Meeting held on Monday 6 February were submitted. RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Meeting held on Monday 6 February, 2023 be signed as a correct record.
There were no declarations of personal interest submitted.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a report (COEP/03/23) asking Members to determine the listed planning applications.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED - That permission be GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief Officer Economy and Planning as set out in report (COPR/03/23)
Mr Simon Murrell (Novus Renewable Services Ltd) spoke in support of the application. The Interim Head of Service Planning Policy introduced the application. Members sought clarity on the net benefit to biodiversity (NBB). The Interim Head of Service Planning Policy drew Member’s attention to Condition 7 in the report. RESOLVED - That permission be GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief Officer Economy and Planning as set out in report (COPR/03/23)
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That permission be REFUSED
The Interim Head of Service Planning Policy introduced the report and shared photographs of the site. He highlighted the main points contained within the report as follows: · A 0.9m high fence had been erected along the boundary with the highway. By itself, this did not require planning permission, however the fence had been erected leaving a splayed vehicular access enclosed by a gate. · The proposal was seeking planning permission in retrospect for the creation of a vehicular access and for the ground levelling works associated with the removal of the railway embankment. · Any future applications would be considered on their own individual merit at that time. The local Member, Councillor Claire Lovett, spoke in relation to the application and shared her concerns in relation to the fencing and the gate at the site and also the loss of agricultural land. The adjoining ward Member, Councillor Nigel Williams, spoke and raised the following points: · Concerns from local residents regarding the future use of the site · The loss of the embankment which had previously naturally ‘re-wilded’ · The removal of a substantial amount of earth from the site, altering the landscape · Concerns in relation to the vehicular access Councillor Mark Pritchard (Leader of the Council) spoke in relation to the application and referred to the encroachment on Council land, which was not in the applicant’s ownership. He raised concerns about the fence line and the lack of a footpath. In response, the Officer confirmed that on visual impact and highway safety grounds the application was permittable. The fencing was less than one metre high and therefore did not require planning permission. The land was outside of settlement and the removal of vegetation did not require planning permission, but an ecology report may be required. A discussion ensued and the following points were raised: · Concerns were expressed in relation to the harmful impact on the environment. · Clarification sought in relation to how the site could be restored to its former state if permission was not granted. · Request that tree planting should take place to reinstate the loss of the trees that were on site. RESOLVED – That permission be REFUSED
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED - That permission be GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief Officer Economy and Planning as set out in report (COPEP/03/23)
The Interim Head of Service Planning Policy introduced the report. RESOLVED - That permission be GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief Officer Economy and Planning as set out in report (COPEP/03/23)
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the list of Delegated Decisions be noted.
RESOLVED – That the list of Delegated Decisions be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a report (COEP/23/23) Development Management Performance Update Report. The Interim Head of Planning Policy introduced the report to provide the Committee with an update on the performance of the Council’s Planning Service for reporting period Quarter 3 of the financial year period 2022-23. RESOLVED – That the report 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.