Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

No interests were declared.

Resolved: That the minutes be approved as a correct record.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement has submitted three planning applications to be determined (enclosed).

Plans to be considered will be displayed at the meeting or may be viewed in advance by following the links to the current planning applications on our website. 

The Head of Planning and Enforcement submitted three planning applications to be determined.

Plans considered were displayed at the meeting and can be viewed on our website

Application deferred to allow Members the opportunity to visit the site.

After careful consideration, it was proposed by the Chair, Councillor June Molyneaux, seconded by Vice Chair Councillor Alex Hilton, and resolved unanimously that the application would be deferred to allow Members the opportunity to visit the site.

Permission in principle refused for the following reason:

“The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, harmful by definition.

There would also be other harm as a result of sprawl and encroachment. It is not considered that there are very special circumstances to overcome the definitional harm to the Green Belt and additional harm caused through sprawl and encroachment. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Craige Southern, seconded by Councillor Gordon France to defer the application to allow Members to visit the site, this amendment was lost (2 for, 9 against).

It was then proposed by Councillor Alex Hilton, seconded by Councillor Sarah Ainsworth and was resolved unanimously that permission in principle be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, harmful by definition. There would also be other harm as a result of sprawl and encroachment. It is not considered that there are very special circumstances to overcome the definitional harm to the Green Belt and additional harm caused through sprawl and encroachment. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning permission refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, harmful by definition. There would also be other harm to the Green Belt through encroachment into the countryside. It is not considered that there are very special circumstances to overcome the definitional harm to the Green Belt and additional harm from encroachment of the countryside. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Danny Gee, seconded by Councillor Alistair Morwood and resolved unanimously that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, harmful by definition. There would also be other harm to the Green Belt through encroachment into the countryside. It is not considered that there are very special circumstances to overcome the definitional harm to the Green Belt and additional harm from encroachment of the countryside. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.