Agenda, decisions and minutes

None

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 11 April and 18 July 2019

The minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 11 April 2019 and 18 July 2019 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

(a)     To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be   considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

(b)     To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.

None.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Delegated conditional approval

The Committee considered item 7 of the agenda.

Public Speakers

Objecting: Peter Cope, Valerie Purkiss, Sally Peel and Ben Dowman

Supporting: Nick Moyes

The Senior Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report.  He reported that two additional letters of representation had been received reiterating concerns previously raised by members of the public.   He displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area, and a map showing the location of nearby residential dwellings.   He recommended approval subject to conditions.  For clarification, he confirmed that the overall maximum number of people staying on the site would be 264, and that the applicant had requested 23 pitches in the western field and 40 in the eastern field.

Councillor P Bütikofer, the local Member, supported this application.  He considered that by allowing two areas of wildflower meadow the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.  He considered that it was important to note that Environmental Health had no recorded complaints in relation to the existing use of the site prior to the application, and that the proposed conditions would address the concerns which had been raised.  He considered that the proposed extension was modest and would strengthen the tourist offer in that part of the District.

Councillor Dr C Stockton referred to the history of the site in terms of complying with conditions.  He requested that the conditions should be unambiguous and that the applicant should be told that they would be enforced.  On this basis, he proposed approval of this application as recommended.

Councillor P Heinrich requested that the meaning of “tents only” should be clearly defined and there should be no folding campers, caravans or motor homes on the site.  He seconded the proposal.

The Head of Planning confirmed that an informative note could be added to expand on condition 3.

Councillor N Lloyd asked for assurances that the conditions would be met.  He requested that a requirement for recycling be added to condition 15.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that submission of details in respect of recycling would need to be agreed in advance of permission being granted.  The condition would not be discharged unless it had been properly addressed.  He stated that the Enforcement Team had not been notified of any particular breaches in the past but the application had highlighted problems.  Any complaints would be investigated.

The Major Projects Manager added that it was important that conditions were clearly articulated for the benefit of the applicant and local residents and confirmed that this would be done.

Councillor N Pearce asked how the Committee could be kept informed regarding adherence with the new conditions and given assurance that further breaches would not occur.

The Head of Planning stated that no breaches had been reported to the Combined Enforcement Team.  Conditions would need to be clearly worded, enforceable in law and clearly understood by all parties.  Any reported breaches would be investigated, enforced and the complainants kept informed.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett referred to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Delegated conditional approval

The Committee considered item 8 of the agenda.

Public Speaker

Philip Saunders (supporting)

The Major Projects Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site.  He reported that the applicant had agreed to undertake further work in respect of the ecological conditions.  He recommended delegated approval of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor P Bütikofer, the local Member, stated that he had no objections to the application.

Councillor N Pearce referred to the climate emergency and considered that this site was well placed.  Provided there was to be no external lighting, he proposed approval of this application as recommended.

Councillor N Lloyd seconded the proposal.  He expressed disappointment that the biodiversity reports had not been forthcoming but understood that they would be provided.

Councillor Dr C Stockton requested clarification with regard to CCTV which had been approved under condition 4 of the previous application.

The Major Projects Manager explained that CCTV cameras were situated around the perimeter of the site for security purposes.

RESOLVED unanimously

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to

·       demonstration by the applicant that the approved Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Scheme and Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the site is meeting its stated aims or, in the event this is not possible within a reasonable timeframe, to include the imposition of a planning condition to secure further biodiversity improvements on site through an updated Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Scheme and Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan LEMP with an additional monitoring period and

·       the conditions listed in the report and any other conditions considered necessary by the Head of Planning.

Delegated conditional approval + Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking

The Committee considered item 9 of the agenda.

Public Speaker

Philip Saunders (supporting)

The Major Projects Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site.  Confirmation was awaited from the applicants with regard to additional contributions but it was understood that they had no objection.  The applicant was willing to carry out additional work with regard to biodiversity.  He recommended delegated approval of this application as set out in the report.

The Major Projects Manager reported that Councillor N Housden, the local Member, supported this application, including the added conditions with regard to biodiversity, and continuing contributions to the benefit fund.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Councillor N Lloyd and

RESOLVED unanimously

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to

·       the completion of a S106 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking to secure an additional £13,000 heritage contribution to be used for the purposes set out in the report;

·       demonstration by the applicant that the approved Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for the site is meeting its stated aims or, in the event this is not possible within a reasonable timeframe, to include the imposition of a planning condition to secure further biodiversity improvements on site through an updated LEMP with an additional monitoring period and

·       the imposition of conditions as listed in the report and any other conditions considered necessary by the Head of Planning.

Refusal

The Committee considered item 10 of the agenda.

Public Speaker

James Harrison (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer (Major Developments) presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site, including photographs from a number of viewpoints.  He recommended refusal of this application for the reasons stated in the report.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she would speak as local Member but would not vote on this application as she had known and been friends with the applicant for many years.  She commented that the report referred erroneously to “Blackberry Hall Cottage” whereas the property was “Blackberry Hall Farm”.  She stated that the holiday park was a top class holiday park which extended its facilities to local residents.  The bar and restaurant were used by the Authority for tourism events.   Woodlands Holiday Park had signed up to be an ambassador for the Deep History Coast project.  However, she had concerns as the Council’s representative on the AONB Partnership.  It was necessary to balance the economic and social needs with the Council’s duty to protect the AONB, and following lengthy negotiations she considered that the application could be approved.  The applicant had agreed to screen the site with trees no less than 10 years old and to replace any that failed.  Power cables would be buried where they crossed the site which she considered to be a planning gain.  She considered that the application should be approved with conditions relating to screening and lighting, and that it would bring social and economic benefits to the east of the District.

Councillor P Heinrich requested further details of the proposed planting.

The Landscape Officer stated that the applicant had not supplied details of the size and nature of the planting.  An indicative plan had been submitted showing where the woodland would be sited.  She explained that there could be a problem if the entire woodland was planted with 10 year old trees given the rate of failure for such trees.  Whips would establish more readily into the landscape.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he could see the economic benefits of the scheme.  However, he was not convinced that the proposed mitigation would screen the site sufficiently to prevent damage to the AONB for many years to come.  He proposed that the application be refused as recommended.

Councillor N Pearce seconded the proposal.

Councillor A Varley asked for an explanation of exceptional circumstances and why this application was not deemed as such.

The Major Projects Manager explained that exceptional circumstances related to developments which were in the wider or national interest which might outweigh AONB policy.   He acknowledged the economic benefit in this case but this was not considered sufficient to outweigh AONB considerations.

Councillor A Varley considered that the proposal was an exceptional circumstance in that the applicants were investing in the local economy, removing overground power cables and wanted the AONB to retain its qualities.  He considered that the application should be approved with strict conditions relating to the planting of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Refusal

The Committee considered item 11 of the agenda.

The Planning Officer stated that the Human Rights section of the report was incorrect and should refer to refusal.

The Planning Officer presented the report.  He displayed plans, including visualisations of the proposed building, and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

The Development Manager read to the Committee a supporting statement from the applicants’ agent.

Councillor J Punchard, a local Member, referred to two cartsheds of similar style and size which had been erected nearby.  Photographs of the structures were displayed at the meeting.  He did not support the recommendation.

Councillor N Lloyd asked if there were preferable materials for this application.

The Planning Officer explained that the proposed materials were considered to be more appropriate for a rural location and would transform the character of the street.  The position of the structure would have an increased impact on the street scene and would contrast with the front of the existing dwelling.

The Development Manager explained that the main issue was the scale of the proposed cartshed, which was considered to be excessive.  A smaller structure in brick to tie in with the existing dwelling would read as one palette of materials but the contrasting materials proposed would be prominent.  However, the Committee had to determine the proposal as submitted.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett supported the Development Manager’s comments.  She considered that the cartsheds referred to by Councillor Punchard receded into their surroundings but the proposed building was too large and the materials did not tie in with the setting.  She proposed that the application be refused as recommended.

Councillor A Varley asked if the buildings referred to by Councillor Punchard had been approved and what the reasons were for doing so.

The Development Manager explained that Officers had not looked into whether the buildings were granted planning permission or if they had been erected under permitted development rights.  The materials and scale of the buildings appeared to recede and the materials reflected the dwellings.

Councillor A Varley seconded the proposal for refusal.

Councillor N Pearce asked if the planning status of the two cartsheds could be confirmed.  He considered that the proposed structure was excessive.

Councillor D Baker supported the recommendation.  He considered that the proposal was inappropriate and out of character with the road.  He commented that the photographs of the existing cartsheds clearly showed substantially different properties of a different scale and size.

Councillor Dr C Stockton considered that the purposes of the building could still be achieved if it was reduced in height and in materials to match the existing house.

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

Conditional approval

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Punchard remained in the Council Chamber during consideration of this application.

The Committee considered item 12 of the agenda.

The Planning Officer presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor N Pearce wished to place on record his congratulations to the Planning Department on the clarity of the applications, which he considered were improving at each meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor N Pearce, seconded by Councillor A Varley and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

Delegated conditional approval

The Committee considered item 13 of the agenda.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and stated that Little Snoring Parish Council supported this application.  She displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  She recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

The Chairman considered that although the proposal was outside the development boundary, it was well tucked in, there was another development of 8-10 dwellings adjacent to the site and the proposal appeared to be a sensible addition.  The Council was moving towards a new Local Plan which would consider appropriate infill development.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the existing Local Plan was the most important primary document and weight should be given to it and to the NPPF.  The emerging Local Plan was in an early draft stage and had very limited weight.  The relevant consideration in this case was the sustainability of the proposal and its relationship to existing development.

On the Chairman’s proposal it was

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

None.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions – Results and Summaries

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

(a)     NEW APPEALS  

The Committee noted item 15(a) of the agenda.

(b)    INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS

The Committee noted item 15(b) of the agenda.

            (c)     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND          

The Committee noted item 15(c) of the agenda.

            (d)    APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES

The Committee noted item 15(d) of the agenda.

(e)     COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS          

The Committee noted item 15(e) of the agenda.