To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 19 December 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2024, were approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of receipt of correspondence and/ or any meetings/discussions held relevant to determination of any planning applications or enforcement actions.

The Principal Planner of Development Management advised the Committee of the number of appeals that have been lodged and the number of decisions that have been received in respect of planning appeals.

The recommendations were for members to note the report. There were no further questions or statements following this.

Recommendations approved.

The Principal Planner presented this item to the committee. Advising the proposal seeks permission for the conversion of the garage, erection of a cycle store at rear of the application site. Member were advised the proposal does not require a formal planning application to be submitted and could be carried out utilising the limits of Permitted Development, however the applicant wanted to continue and have the application determined at Planning Committee. It was confirmed that it is completely lawful and limited conditions can be imposed.

It was confirmed the application was called-in by Councillors Watson, Morris-Cook, Green, Hurrell and Hartstean to consider the lack of parking facilities and the effect it may have on the neighbouring properties.

Members raised concerns regarding parking in the area. Adding that there are two Housing Multiple Occupancy’s (HMO’s) in area that will put a strain on services. The Principal Planner noted the concerns, however identified that this could not be used as a reason for refusal.

Members queried if the same model could be applied to any property. It was confirmed that it could be applied to other properties including terraced properties. It was noted that the planning team were bound by planning legislation and sometimes applications are considered with no parking options.

Members queried whether there were any enforcement options for those in HMO’s that had more vehicles permitted. It was confirmed that as a planning committee there was not much that they could do regarding parking.

The Chief Planning Officer advised he would liaise with the transport team lead as any issues around parking are matters that go beyond the remit of planning committee and would need to be considered by the council.

Members queried whether vans and cars could park on the green areas. It was confirmed residents cannot park on the green areas.

Members skipped the debate as majority of the questions could be considered as debate.

Recommendations

That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 16 of this report –

A)   Conditions

Proposed: Councillor Sisterson

Seconded: Councillor Fletcher

Favour (3): Councillors Fletcher, Liddiard, Sisterson

Against (4): Councillors P Arnold, J Maney, Green, Shinnick

Abstain (1): Councillor G Byrne

Recommendations NOT approved

The Chief Planning Officer stated that it was not clear what the reasons for refusal were and suggested the item be deferred to allow the applicant to withdraw their application due to the fallback position of the development.

The Chair proposed other recommendations to defer the item to advise the applicant to withdraw.

The Legal representative summarised there had been a recommendation for approval that has failed, adding that the recommendation for refusal were not provided, however equally the chair has provided alternative recommendations to allow further discussions with the applicant and persuade them to withdraw. Reiterating the opportunity for deferral may resolve the issue.

Proposed: Councillor Fletcher

Seconded: Councillor J Maney

For (4):  Fletcher, J Maney, Sisterson, Shinnick

Against (1): Green

Abstain (2): Byrne,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

The Principal Planner presented this report to the committee. Advising the application seeks to change of use from Class E f) nursery to Class F1 a) for the provision of education - together with Internal alterations, replacement doors and new windows. The proposed change of use will provide education facilities for 20 pupils, with retained parking spaces for 20 cars.

Members queried whether the Scouts team were still using the facility. It was confirmed that Scouts team are next door although they have not had any correspondence from the organisation.

Members queried what enforcement options were available if construction workers, work outside of their time restraints. It was confirmed they do have set hours of work and powers of enforcement can be actioned if they breach their hours.

Members skipped the debate and proceeded to vote.

Recommendations

That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 16 of this report - A) Conditions

Proposed: Councillor Liddiard

Seconded: Councillor Green

Favour (8): Fletcher, Liddiard, P Arnold, G Byrne, Green, J Maney, Shinnick, Sisterson

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Recommendations Approved.

Application for outline planning permission with all matters reserved apart from access: Proposed mixed use development comprising up to 750 no. residential dwellings, medical facility, retail and commercial units

This item was heard before the applications listed on the agenda as it related to appeals. The planning officer presented this report to the planning committee. Advising that the appeal was validated 31 January 2025.

Members were advised that it will follow the public inquiry procedure that is scheduled to commence on 1 July 2025.

It was confirmed the update had been brought back to committee to inform members of the inquiry and for the Planning Committee to provide delegated powers to the Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to refine or remove refusal reasons where appropriate, progress and agree a schedule of planning conditions and negotiate and complete a Section 106 Agreement in order to secure appropriate mitigation to offset the harm of the proposed development in the event that the appeal is allowed.

Members were advised that the appellants have notified the Council of their intention to submit additional information in the coming weeks to reduce the number of refusal reasons. It remains the case that Officers consider the proposal to be unacceptable in this location, but the Council must act positively and proactively prior to the inquiry. A failure to positively engage could expose the Council to a cost’s application on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

Members queried if officers had received any information from developers regarding any changes. It was confirmed they intend to offer 50% affordable housing.

Members queried if the recommendations were approved, whether there was any risk that the application would not be defended. Officers reiterated the need for the Council to act reasonably, however explained to Members that where reasons remain defendable the position will be to support these reasons at the appeal.

Members queried whether there was any clear indication of how they will address the reasons for refusal. Members were advised they would investigate mitigation around noise disturbance and improving links and access on to the A128. The are also attempting to get a footpath on Parkers Farm Lane.

The Chief Planning Officer reiterated that they were not there to discuss the merits of the case, advising members that update reports will be brought to the next few committees,’ so members are aware of process made. 

The Legal representative added that the government guidance clearly states councils need to pro-actively engage with the appellant during the appeals process. Stating that during an appeals process the appellant has an opportunity to submit an unilateral undertaking which would not have the council as a party and would be submitted to the council. Therefore, it’s in the councils’ interest to negotiate a s.106 agreement that retains a level of control on the negotiations, this would also apply to any conditions that were negotiated.

Recommendations

That the Planning Committee agree to delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer, with agreement with the Chair of Planning Committee, to

i)               Remove refusal reasons or refine the basis for refusal reasons as and where appropriate.

ii)             Progress and complete a Section 106 Agreement and.

iii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.