Apologies had been received from Cllrs Wiles and Laplain.  Cllrs Heard and Sankey were substitutes respectively.

The Minutes of the last meeting held on 26^th July 2022 were agreed as a true record subject to the following amendment:

Minute 124

Members raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of 3 storey buildings among surrounding bungalows and 2 storey buildings.  Also, another major issue is with regard to air quality and noise given the proximity to the A12 and the proposed siting of the children’s playground.

The application had been referred by Cllr Davies to the Planning and Licensing committee in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s constitution.

Planning permission was sought for the demolition of storage buildings and the erection of four houses.

Mrs Carole Vint presented the report to Members.

Mr Jopson, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of his application.

Cllr Davies was also present at the meeting and raised her concerns regarding the conflicting advice which had been given and stated she thought the overall appearance of the site would be improved should the application be granted.

Cllr Mynott objected to the application because of the extra ridge height, the layout and increased volume which was detrimental to the openness of the green belt.

Cllr Mynott MOVED that the application be REFUSED which was SECONDED by Cllr Cuthbert.

Following a full debate, where members stated the application would provide new homes with environmental benefits, a vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Cuthbert, Sankey, Mynott (3)

AGAINST: Cllrs Dr Barrett, Barber, Bridge, Gelderbloem, Heard, Jakobsson, Parker, Tanner (8)

ABSTAIN:  Cllr Fryd (1)

The motion to REFUSE the application was LOST.

A motion was MOVED to APPROVE the application by Cllr Bridge and SECONDED by Cllr Parker.

A vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Barber, Bridge, Gelderbloem, Heard, Jakobsson, Parker, Tanner (8)

AGAINST: Cllrs Cuthbert, Sankey, Mynott (3)

ABSTAIN:  Cllr Fryd (1)

The motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED subject to the

following conditions:

1          TIM01 Standard Time - Full

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2          DRA01A        Development in accordance with drawings

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the approved drawing(s) listed above and specifications.

Reason:  To ensure that the development is as permitted by the local planning authority and for the avoidance of doubt.

3          MAT01           Samples (details acceptable)

No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  In Order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

4          BOU01           Boundary treatment to be agreed (general)

The development shall not be occupied until details of the treatment of all boundaries including drawings of any gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The approved boundary treatments shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained.

Reason:  In the interests of safeguarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

This application had been referred to committee at the request of Cllr Hossack for the reasons set out in the report.

Mrs Vint presented this report.

Mr Tyrell, resident, was present at the meeting and spoke in support of the application.  Mr Taylor, the applicant, also present, addressed the committee supporting his application.

Cllr Hossack, Ward Councillor, spoke summarising his reasons for his referral. 

Cllr Barber spoke in favour of the application and MOVED that the application be APPROVED.  The motion was SECONDED by Cllr Heard.

Following a full debate a vote was taken and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Barber, Bridge, Heard, Gelderbloem, Jakobsson, Parker, Tanner (8)

AGAINST:  Cllrs Cuthbert, Fryd, Mynott (3)

ABSTAIN: Cllr Sankey (1)

The motion to APROVE the application was RESOLVED subject to the following conditions:

1 .        TIM01:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.         DRA01A

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the approved documents listed above and specifications.

Reason:  To ensure that the development is as permitted by the local planning authority and for the avoidance of doubt.

This application had been referred to committee at the request of Councillor Keith Parker for the following reason:

This application is for a sculpture which has been entered for the Turner Prize. It is of some size and considered by many to be a significant work of art. I believe the committee have a right to decide it's future.

Mrs Vint summarised the report.  The application was retrospective.

Mr McNamara was present at the meeting and spoke in support of his application.

Following debate a motion was moved to APPROVE the application by Cllr Bridge and SECONDED by Cllr Mynott.

Cllr Gelderbloem, Ward Cllr, addressed the Committee advising the structure was detrimental to the Green Belt, built without planning permission, and stated that the Parish Council upheld their objection.

Members were minded to approve the application on a time limit basis for 18 months.

A vote was taken and Members voted as followed:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Barber, Bridge, Fryd, Heard, Jakobbson, Mynott, Tanner (8)

AGAINST: Cllr Gelderbloem (1)

ABSTAIN:  Cllrs Cuthbert, Sankey (2)

The motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED subject to the following conditions:

1          The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the approved documents listed above and specifications.

Reason:  To ensure that the development is as permitted by the local planning authority and for the avoidance of doubt.

2          This permission shall enure for a time limited period of eighteen months from the date of this decision and on the expiry of that period the development shall be completely dismantled and all materials permanently removed from the site.

Reason: To provide an opportunity for the development to be assessed by the awarding authorities for the Turner Prize.

The application had been reported to the Planning and Licensing committee in

accordance with the requirements of the Council’s constitution.

Mrs Vint presented the report stating this was not a planning application but an application to determine whether prior approval was required for the siting and appearance of the proposal.

Following debate a motion to APPROVE the application was MOVED by Cllr Barber and SECONDED by Cllr Mynott.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Barber, Bridge, Cuthbert, Fryd, Heard, Gelderbloem, Jakobsson, Mynott, Parker, Sankey, Tanner (12)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to APPROVE the application was RESOLVED.

The application had been reported to the Planning and Licensing committee in

accordance with the requirements of the Council’s constitution.

Mrs Vint presented the report stating this was not a planning application but an application to determine whether prior approval was required for the siting and appearance of the proposal.

Following debate a motion to REFUSE the application was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Barber.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Dr Barrett, Barber, Bridge, Cuthbert, Fryd, Heard, Gelderbloem, Jakobsson, Mynott, Parker, Sankey, Tanner (12)

AGAINST: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

The motion to REFUSE the application was RESOLVED.

This report provided Members with a summary of recent planning appeal decisions.

Members welcomed this report.  Following debate, the report was noted by Members.

There were no items of urgent business.

                                                                        The meeting concluded at 20.40